Bear Down Wildcats

You two must believe this bullshit as well.

PHXCATS wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:06 pm Everyone acting like the Big 12 is hot shit and been the premier basketball conference for 50 years. The only school with any long term success is Kansas.

The Big 12 TV deal is shit and people are acting like it is 2MM less per school per year than the Big Ten

The Big 12 will always be there for UA. Always.

The most foolish thing that can possibly be done is to leave the PAC now (unless you got a Big Ten or SEC offer) before knowing the figures and who can join the PAC

This is such a dumb post for so many reasons. Go to bed.

AZCatGirl wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:30 pm You two must believe this bullshit as well.

Does it matter for the PAC-12 negotiations? Maybe 0.03%


But it does 100% bring value to the conference

If it matters so little for TV rights negotiations how does it bring value to the conference?

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:36 am If it matters so little for TV rights negotiations how does it bring value to the conference?

Colorado being good helps the entire conference. It brings buzz and eyeballs.

Those eyeballs are all on Fox and ESPIN and not on Amazon or Netflix?

Just crazy we don’t have the balls to do what is clearly in our best interest.

And once again we got insulted by the conference when we didn’t place a single player on the first team even though we had one receiver with the most catches and the other with the most yards.

PHXCATS wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:27 am

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:36 am If it matters so little for TV rights negotiations how does it bring value to the conference?

Colorado being good helps the entire conference. It brings buzz and eyeballs.

That helps any conference they are in. Mostly with TV money during negotiations.

Colorado didn’t hire Deion because they are in a getting stronger PAC10/12. They hired him to get better. Which will make them attractive to other conferences. Schools are most definitely planning for a post-PAC future. And Colorado and Arizona should be charting that path. Not waiting around to see what Oregon and Washington do and then praying they land right-side-up after the dust settles.

Oregon and Washington have been adamant about not leaving the PAC for the BIG 12. For them, it's the B1G, SEC, or stay in the PAC. Because of this fact, there is almost zero chance that if Oregon and UW leave for the B1G, that once the dust settles, Arizona isn't in the BIG 12. As stated, Arizona would be one of the marquee programs in the BIG 12. We could leave now, but ask yourself, why does Colorado, Utah, ASu, Oregon, and Washington don't leave for the BIG 12 if they are all equal or bigger schools than Arizona, and the BIG 12 would love to have any and all of them?

That's because the BIG 12 offers nothing significantly better than the PAC right now. PAC money will likely be a little higher. Travel in the PAC will mean lower costs as all conference trips for all sports remain out west, versus having to travel to West Virginia or Florida. And academically, which I agree shouldn't matter but does, the PAC still has several AAU schools versus the BIG 12, which has Kansas.

With the playoff expansion, there might be less incentive for UW and Oregon to go B1G. Playing in the PAC will provide an easier path to the playoff than joining the B1G and competing with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and USC. In fact, USC might struggle because they will likely have 3 or 4 trips to the Midwest whereas current B1G schools will only have to travel west once a year. If Oregon and UW see USC and UCLA struggle to finish atop the B1G, it will more reasons to stay in the PAC.

The reason we move now is because we are a basketball school and this upgrades our brand with no downside otherwise. The PAC is a horrendous conference and will only get worse after the LA schools leave. The move would be to protect the revenue and profits we derive from basketball.

Being buried on streaming networks with little talk on ESPIN lessons our brand. You seem like a PAC Bot that just follows people around to drive the narrative that all is well. This conference sucks giant hairy sparky balls

Who is to say the Big 12 is better in basketball for certain in 5 years.

Kansas is the only long term success in basketball. Houston has had moments as has Ok State. Texas Tech and Baylor are new and can fade soon.

See what the PAC-12 can do with expansion and their TV deal. U of A is not getting left out in the cold. Big 12 and ACC will always be options

azcat49 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:27 am The reason we move now is because we are a basketball school and this upgrades our brand with no downside otherwise. The PAC is a horrendous conference and will only get worse after the LA schools leave. The move would be to protect the revenue and profits we derive from basketball.

Being buried on streaming networks with little talk on ESPIN lessons our brand. You seem like a PAC Bot that just follows people around to drive the narrative that all is well. This conference sucks giant hairy sparky balls

Basketball conference power tends to cycle. The blue bloods like Kansas, Kentucky, and Arizona usually stay on top as long as the coaching situation is stable. But conference power tends to go up and down. And even though we're a basketball school, football still pays the most bills, and needs to going forward.

Again, moving to the BIG 12 would likely mean less TV money and definitely an increased travel expenditure. How much more money, realistically, can we squeeze out of our basketball program? And how much, if any, would we lose if we stayed in the PAC? Would McKale not be filled if we stayed in the PAC? Would we not have premiere games like the upcoming one against Indiana in a future PAC? No. The revenue we drive from basketball comes from being a blue blood program. As long as we stay on top, we'll continue to do just fine in terms of basketball revenue.

Staying in the PAC for now means more TV revenue and less travel expenditures versus if we leave for the BIG 12. These are the facts. McKale was filled for years, even when Oregon State was cycling through coach after coach from the mid 1990s until they landed Tinkle. It will be filled for Oregon State if and when they suck again in the future.

azcat49 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:27 am The reason we move now is because we are a basketball school and this upgrades our brand with no downside otherwise. The PAC is a horrendous conference and will only get worse after the LA schools leave. The move would be to protect the revenue and profits we derive from basketball.

Being buried on streaming networks with little talk on ESPIN lessons our brand. You seem like a PAC Bot that just follows people around to drive the narrative that all is well. This conference sucks giant hairy sparky balls

Very well said (especially the last sentence).

To me it boils down to up to 3x yearly basketball matchups with the likes of Kansas and Baylor on ESPN in prime time, or praying that whatever Oregon and Washington decide doesn’t relegate us to the Mountain West or whatever shit conference desperately wants to absorb the carcass of the Pac12 Network.

No brainer. Let’s get out of the PAC-8.

PHXCATS wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:15 am Who is to say the Big 12 is better in basketball for certain in 5 years.

Who's to say the PAC-X won't be worse than the Big Sky in 5 years?

When has the PAC ever been better than the Big 12 on basketball? You would have to go back to the 90’s for that.

I don’t get the betting on the cone that this $hit show of a conference will thrive in the future.

When you have the chance you put your future in your own hands and you can bet as soon as they can, Oregon and UDub will. Why we are waiting is just Stupid

Why are we waiting? More revenue and less expenses by staying in the PAC. The bottom line is why UCLA is leaving. It's why we should stay.

And again, with hell freezing over before Oregon and Washington join the BIG 12, what do we have to fear about not landing in the BIG 12 if OU and UW go to the B1G? ACC teams? Under contract that seems to be unbreakable until 2036. No fear there either. This fear that we'll be left out in the cold by power conference and end up in the Mountain West is unfounded. Sign a 5-year TV deal and in 2029, we'd still be a potential marquee school for the BIG 12 if this is the time Oregon, UW, and Stanford go B1G.

Meanwhile, staying in the PAC in the short term is what's best for our bottom line. BIG 12 Tier 3 rights may be on ESPN, but they are streaming with ESPN+. Is that better or worse than Amazon? I say worse, because ESPN+ has less subscribers, and no deal with DirecTv to broadcast plus games in sports bars and restaurants. Amazon has one for TNF NFL games. And being on DTV is better than we have now with Tier 3 games on the PAC-12 Network, which we all know isn't on DTV.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:01 pm Meanwhile, staying in the PAC in the short term is what's best for our bottom line. BIG 12 Tier 3 rights may be on ESPN, but they are streaming with ESPN+. Is that better or worse than Amazon? I say worse, because ESPN+ has less subscribers, and no deal with DirecTv to broadcast plus games in sports bars and restaurants. Amazon has one for TNF NFL games. And being on DTV is better than we have now with Tier 3 games on the PAC-12 Network, which we all know isn't on DTV.

You do realize that everything you posted after the bolded sentence isn’t actual evidence to support that argument, don’t you? That’s just supposition and wishful thinking.

What do we have to fear about not being invited to the Big12 6 years from now? It’s not having an invite to the Big12!

You assume they will just stand pat until the PAC-8 implodes, but what if they are proactive? I know that’s not something someone so scared of change can imagine, but what if they formulate their power conference without us? What if other PAC schools jump now and leave us in the dust. You’re so damn confident that the landscape will be the same in 6(!) years when there is ZERO evidence it will be.

Your fear has been noted. Now my hope is you can quietly piss down your leg over in the corner while people with balls make these decisions.

Every month we spend in the PAC 12 at this point is a further nail in the coffin of our long term success potential in any sport. And I say this as someone very attached to the PAC 12 that turns my nose up at joining uncivilized Texans and Midwesterners in the Big 12. We have to join the big 12 asap to survive

ASUHATER! wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:14 pm Every month we spend in the PAC 12 at this point is a further nail in the coffin of our long term success potential in any sport. And I say this as someone very attached to the PAC 12 that turns my nose up at joining uncivilized Texans and Midwesterners in the Big 12. We have to join the big 12 asap to survive

Wow. There is absolutely no reason to think that Arizona will only be successful by moving conferences and wow on the uncivilized part

azgreg wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:21 am

PHXCATS wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:15 am Who is to say the Big 12 is better in basketball for certain in 5 years.

Who's to say the PAC-X won't be worse than the Big Sky in 5 years?

You are right in that nothing is certain

But I would bet every dollar in my account that the PAC will be better than the Big Sky in 5 years

Who besides Kansas is a long term success? No one. Can’t assume Baylor will be good forever. Can’t assume Tech will be good forever. Can’t assume Houston will be good forever etc

Ehh. Let's stay in the PAC for now and see how it shakes out.

I'll take Robbins' and Heeke's more educated guess on the future than anybody here-and it goes without saying that they could certainly be wrong like everybody else could be.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:11 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:01 pm Meanwhile, staying in the PAC in the short term is what's best for our bottom line. BIG 12 Tier 3 rights may be on ESPN, but they are streaming with ESPN+. Is that better or worse than Amazon? I say worse, because ESPN+ has less subscribers, and no deal with DirecTv to broadcast plus games in sports bars and restaurants. Amazon has one for TNF NFL games. And being on DTV is better than we have now with Tier 3 games on the PAC-12 Network, which we all know isn't on DTV.

You do realize that everything you posted after the bolded sentence isn’t actual evidence to support that argument, don’t you? That’s just supposition and wishful thinking.

What do we have to fear about not being invited to the Big12 6 years from now? It’s not having an invite to the Big12!

You assume they will just stand pat until the PAC-8 implodes, but what if they are proactive? I know that’s not something someone so scared of change can imagine, but what if they formulate their power conference without us? What if other PAC schools jump now and leave us in the dust. You’re so damn confident that the landscape will be the same in 6(!) years when there is ZERO evidence it will be.

Your fear has been noted. Now my hope is you can quietly piss down your leg over in the corner while people with balls make these decisions.

Conferences only add teams that add to the existing member school's bottom line. Colorado State might be a geographic fit for the BIG 12, but they are not getting an invite because they are not worth $33 million a year, which is what the average payout of the current BIG 12 TV contract is worth. If CSU got an invite to the BIG 12, it would dilute the value, and cause schools to receive less money.

Schools worth more than $33 million a year that aren't currently in the SEC or B1G already are Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Clemson, FSU, North Carolina, and maybe Miami. If I missed any, please anyone, feel free to add to the list. Regardless, we know 100% ND, Oregon and UW are never going to the BIG 12. And the ACC schools? Locked in to the ACC until 2036 by contract that is too expensive to break.

So, what scenarios are there that see the BIG 12 be proactive and add schools that add value to their conference that don't include UO, UW, ND, or any ACC schools? Adding the 4-corner PAC schools would qualify. After that? I'm hard pressed to think of any scenario that sees BIG 12 growth that is better than the 4-corner PAC schools. Heck, none of the BIG 12 expansion options are even close to being better than adding the 4-corner PAC schools. I guess they could add like S. Florida and SMU, but that's adding smaller schools in market they already have market share. And doubtful these schools add any value to the pot.

The BIG 12 is thinking like I am. They would love the 4-corner PAC schools, as they would be BIG 12 marquee members. The BIG 12 would be over the moon with OU and UW, but that's never happening. But if OU and UW do go B1G around 2030, then the 4-corner schools are going to be looking for a home. At this point, the BIG 12 becomes the best option. So, if you are Commissioner Yormack of the BIG 12, do you make a move now that wouldn't be as big a splash as the 4-corner PAC schools? Or, do you wait until the next round of negotiations and see if the B1G puts the PAC in the grave by grabbing OU and UW, which then means the 4-corners will be begging for admittance?

Just curious - why is Stanford on that list?

GlobalCat wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:26 pm Just curious - why is Stanford on that list?

Private School, Big money. Academics. California.

MountainCat wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:41 pm

GlobalCat wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:26 pm Just curious - why is Stanford on that list?

Private School, Big money. Academics. California.

Stanford also has a large athletics endowment, and is generally the best Olympic sports programs. How many Conference of Champions championships are Stanford in Olympic sports? Stanford's only drawback is they are located in the Bay Area, where college sports barely registers a blip. The Raiders moved away from the Bay twice, and there are probably more Raiders fans in the area than Stanford, CAL, and San Jose State fans combined.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:06 am

PHXCATS wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:27 am

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:36 am If it matters so little for TV rights negotiations how does it bring value to the conference?

Colorado being good helps the entire conference. It brings buzz and eyeballs.

That helps any conference they are in. Mostly with TV money during negotiations.

Colorado didn’t hire Deion because they are in a getting stronger PAC10/12. They hired him to get better. Which will make them attractive to other conferences. Schools are most definitely planning for a post-PAC future. And Colorado and Arizona should be charting that path. Not waiting around to see what Oregon and Washington do and then praying they land right-side-up after the dust settles.

Coaches aren’t permanent. TV Networks aren’t simpletons, they know this. Deion’s hiring won’t change a single god damn thing about our TV negotiations. I truly hope Kliavkoff was joking when he said that, it sounds like he wasn’t though.

Carcassdragger wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:06 pm Ehh. Let's stay in the PAC for now and see how it shakes out.

I'll take Robbins' and Heeke's more educated guess on the future than anybody here-and it goes without saying that they could certainly be wrong like everybody else could be.

They aren’t any educated more than you and I are, because there was supposed to be a TV deal for them to review on their desks last month and now they’re not going to get one until next month at the earliest.

Let me be clear Bobby Robbins and Dave Heeke aren’t invested into this like you and I are. They have contracts and once their contracts are up that’s it, no more cares for the University of Arizona. Staying in the PAC 12 is the safe lazy move for them, because they know this situation will fall to their successors. They don’t care like you and I do. They’re not lifers. The quicker you understand that the quicker you won’t put all your faith into them. They can just kick the can down the road, because that’s the least risky move to take.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:11 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:01 pm Meanwhile, staying in the PAC in the short term is what's best for our bottom line. BIG 12 Tier 3 rights may be on ESPN, but they are streaming with ESPN+. Is that better or worse than Amazon? I say worse, because ESPN+ has less subscribers, and no deal with DirecTv to broadcast plus games in sports bars and restaurants. Amazon has one for TNF NFL games. And being on DTV is better than we have now with Tier 3 games on the PAC-12 Network, which we all know isn't on DTV.

You do realize that everything you posted after the bolded sentence isn’t actual evidence to support that argument, don’t you? That’s just supposition and wishful thinking.

What do we have to fear about not being invited to the Big12 6 years from now? It’s not having an invite to the Big12!

You assume they will just stand pat until the PAC-8 implodes, but what if they are proactive? I know that’s not something someone so scared of change can imagine, but what if they formulate their power conference without us? What if other PAC schools jump now and leave us in the dust. You’re so damn confident that the landscape will be the same in 6(!) years when there is ZERO evidence it will be.

Your fear has been noted. Now my hope is you can quietly piss down your leg over in the corner while people with balls make these decisions.

Here’s the best part about his argument, he says Amazon is better because they have more subscribers, but their subscribers do not subscribe for sports. They subscribe for two day shipping or The Boys or Lord of the Rings. There’s a good amount that subscribe for TNF, but for the billionth time the NFL =/= PAC 12 sports. Every single ESPN+ subscriber uses it to watch sports. The subscription difference is a red herring just like every argument he makes to stay in the PAC 12. You’re spot on about the Big 12’s future. They may decide they only need ASU for the PHX market and focus on the ACC leftovers to fill their remaining spots. If U of A was located in Phx then our future would be very secure, but last I checked it’s not. To go about this situation thinking the Big 12 will always be there is as foolish as putting your faith in Robbins/Heeke.

ChooChooCat wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:49 pm

CardiacCats97 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:11 pm

AzCatFan2 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:01 pm Meanwhile, staying in the PAC in the short term is what's best for our bottom line. BIG 12 Tier 3 rights may be on ESPN, but they are streaming with ESPN+. Is that better or worse than Amazon? I say worse, because ESPN+ has less subscribers, and no deal with DirecTv to broadcast plus games in sports bars and restaurants. Amazon has one for TNF NFL games. And being on DTV is better than we have now with Tier 3 games on the PAC-12 Network, which we all know isn't on DTV.

You do realize that everything you posted after the bolded sentence isn’t actual evidence to support that argument, don’t you? That’s just supposition and wishful thinking.

What do we have to fear about not being invited to the Big12 6 years from now? It’s not having an invite to the Big12!

You assume they will just stand pat until the PAC-8 implodes, but what if they are proactive? I know that’s not something someone so scared of change can imagine, but what if they formulate their power conference without us? What if other PAC schools jump now and leave us in the dust. You’re so damn confident that the landscape will be the same in 6(!) years when there is ZERO evidence it will be.

Your fear has been noted. Now my hope is you can quietly piss down your leg over in the corner while people with balls make these decisions.

Here’s the best part about his argument, he says Amazon is better because they have more subscribers, but their subscribers do not subscribe for sports. They subscribe for two day shipping or The Boys or Lord of the Rings. There’s a good amount that subscribe for TNF, but for the billionth time the NFL =/= PAC 12 sports. Every single ESPN+ subscriber uses it to watch sports. The subscription difference is a red herring just like every argument he makes to stay in the PAC 12. You’re spot on about the Big 12’s future. They may decide they only need ASU for the PHX market and focus on the ACC leftovers to fill their remaining spots. If U of A was located in Phx then our future would be very secure, but last I checked it’s not. To go about this situation thinking the Big 12 will always be there is as foolish as putting your faith in Robbins/Heeke.

Amazon has Thursday Night Football. Average viewership over 13 million a game. And skewing younger than typical Sunday NFL viewership. (https://frontofficesports.com/amazon-th ... iewership/)

ESPN+ has 24 million subscribers, but not all are sports fans. Plus is bundled with Hulu and Disney Plus and if you want Hulu and Disney, it's cheaper to get the bundle wish ESPN. Average ESPN+ telecast is lucky to get 1 million viewers. Amazon also already has a license with DirecTv to show games in sports bars. ESPN+ requires an additional license, and even then, not all games may be included.

Again, if you're Yormack, and Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Notre Dame are off the table, and ACC teams are unavailable until 2036, what do you do? Take smaller schools than the 4-corner PAC schools and dilute the conference? Or wait until circa 2030 and the next round of conference negotiations and see if the B1G deals the PAC a death blow, and then take the corner schools?

Last, anyone think the BOR would allow ASu to go to the BIG 12 without Arizona? No. The only way the BOR allows the two schools to split is it a net positive for both schools. ASu to the BIG12 and Arizona to the Mtn West is not that deal.

You’ve tried to make that ESPN+ subscriber comparison before and you were wrong before and are wrong now.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:49 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:32 am ESPN+ has 23 million subscribers. Many of whom probably bundled with Hulu and Disney+ and hardly ever use it.

That’s the number of individual subscribers. Not those who are bundled with other services. I get it through Disney and my cable company as do millions of other people.

Those 24 million individual subscribers are most definitely fans of some sport. Could be college football, could be hockey, could be UFC, could just be Fantasy, but they are sports enthusiasts. And there is no denying that ESPN drives the narrative and ignores teams and conferences they aren’t affiliated with.

I’m not you, but if I was I’d leave the “ESPN is worse than Amazon” takes in my back pocket. They’ve never made a lick of sense.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:59 am You’ve tried to make that ESPN+ subscriber comparison before and you were wrong before and are wrong now.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:49 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:32 am ESPN+ has 23 million subscribers. Many of whom probably bundled with Hulu and Disney+ and hardly ever use it.

That’s the number of individual subscribers. Not those who are bundled with other services. I get it through Disney and my cable company as do millions of other people.

Those 24 million individual subscribers are most definitely fans of some sport. Could be college football, could be hockey, could be UFC, could just be Fantasy, but they are sports enthusiasts. And there is no denying that ESPN drives the narrative and ignores teams and conferences they aren’t affiliated with.

I’m not you, but if I was I’d leave the “ESPN is worse than Amazon” takes in my back pocket. They’ve never made a lick of sense.

The PAC's Tier one rights would still be with ESPN. We wouldn't be ignored. ESPN also has 4 networks to fill programming. ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU. Plenty of time slots available through the season.

As for subscribers, 24 million individual households. Some of whom subscribe only to ESPN + because it's part of the bundle with Hulu and Disney Plus. You buy the bundle, and get access to ESPN+ content, you are put into the subscriber bucket. It's how vI have ESPN+ content, and I have no different access than someone subscribing to ESPN+ without the bundle.

You cannot call all 24 million ESPN+ subscribers sports fans. And even a sports fan like me hardly watches it. I don't enjoy UFC, and not a huge NHL or MLS fan. As for Amazon, their Thursday Night Football numbers show they are doing something right, and sports can exist on a streaming network other than ESPN and do just fine.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:28 am

CardiacCats97 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:59 am You’ve tried to make that ESPN+ subscriber comparison before and you were wrong before and are wrong now.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:49 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:32 am ESPN+ has 23 million subscribers. Many of whom probably bundled with Hulu and Disney+ and hardly ever use it.

That’s the number of individual subscribers. Not those who are bundled with other services. I get it through Disney and my cable company as do millions of other people.

Those 24 million individual subscribers are most definitely fans of some sport. Could be college football, could be hockey, could be UFC, could just be Fantasy, but they are sports enthusiasts. And there is no denying that ESPN drives the narrative and ignores teams and conferences they aren’t affiliated with.

I’m not you, but if I was I’d leave the “ESPN is worse than Amazon” takes in my back pocket. They’ve never made a lick of sense.

The PAC's Tier one rights would still be with ESPN. We wouldn't be ignored. ESPN also has 4 networks to fill programming. ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU. Plenty of time slots available through the season.

As for subscribers, 24 million individual households. Some of whom subscribe only to ESPN + because it's part of the bundle with Hulu and Disney Plus. You buy the bundle, and get access to ESPN+ content, you are put into the subscriber bucket. It's how vI have ESPN+ content, and I have no different access than someone subscribing to ESPN+ without the bundle.

You cannot call all 24 million ESPN+ subscribers sports fans. And even a sports fan like me hardly watches it. I don't enjoy UFC, and not a huge NHL or MLS fan. As for Amazon, their Thursday Night Football numbers show they are doing something right, and sports can exist on a streaming network other than ESPN and do just fine.

For the 8 billionth time you can not compare the NFL to Pac 12 sports. It does not work that way. The NFL is a fucking unicorn. You can air a terrible matchup like last night and millions of people will watch it. The same does not go for PAC 12 football. Also Amazon pays NBC to do their NFL games, if they partner with the PAC 12, they’d use the PAC 12 Network infrastructure to do their PAC 12 games, so needless to say every thing they’re doing right with the NFL would not apply to the PAC 12. The quality would be much different.

The PAC 12 has the most apathetic fans or simply put the footprint of the conference just does not care about college sports. This has been explained to you, but you ignore it. PAC 12 on a streamer is suicide, because barely anybody would watch it. You’re literally advocating for suicide. You need help. Oh and the word is Amazon wouldn’t be just Tier 2 or 3, they’d also have a piece of Tier 1. So there goes that argument for you, but hey at least we’d make a million more per year than Cincinnati.

Disney+ has 165M subscribers, 40% of which have ESPN+ bundled in.

Also, people share passwords. We have 4 households using the same Disney+ subscription and at least two of them regularly watch ESPN+.

Also some people get ESPN+ through their cable provider.

Your numbers are wildly off. From what I can figure 75-80M households have access to ESPN+.

Here's the source for the 24 million ESPN + subscribers. https://www.statista.com/statistics/105 ... criber-us/

The NFL isn't a unicorn. But it's the King of US Sports. Know what that means? If the PAC is the only college conference on Amazon, guess what promos are going to aired by Amazon all Thursday Night, with over 13 million viewers? PAC sports promos.

Again, the NFL has not only seen no degradation in viewership on Amazon, they've seen the viewers skew younger. Positive signs that younger viewers are willing and currently using streaming to watch live sports. Younger viewers have a larger LTV (Lifetime Value), and this fact cannot be discounted.

Last, if going with Amazon does turn out to be PAC suicide, and there is certainly risk involved, then by the end of the contract in 2030, the PAC implodes, and we end up in the BIG 12. Unless people think Oregon and Washington are going to change their mind about looking down on the BIG 12 in 6 years. Which just isn't logical. Especially considering the LA schools will likely want travel partners much closer, if possible. UW and UO will never go BIG 12, but would go B1G in a heartbeat.

AzCatFan2 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:30 am Here's the source for the 24 million ESPN + subscribers. https://www.statista.com/statistics/105 ... criber-us/

And I keep telling you that’s individual subscribers to just ESPN+. Here is where I got the 40% of Disney subscribers have the ESPN/Hulu bundle - https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/2344 ... arnings-us

By my count that’s 65 million subscribers.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:45 am

AzCatFan2 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:30 am Here's the source for the 24 million ESPN + subscribers. https://www.statista.com/statistics/105 ... criber-us/

And I keep telling you that’s individual subscribers to just ESPN+. Here is where I got the 40% of Disney subscribers have the ESPN/Hulu bundle - https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/2344 ... arnings-us

By my count that’s 65 million subscribers.

Individual subscribers are counted the same if they are bundled as part of a subscription, or if they are just one-off subscribers. Why would Disney only reports 24 million subscribers to ESPN+ if the real number, included with the bundles, is 3 times higher? With 3X the subscribers, Disney would be able to charge a lot more for advertising on ESPN+. Sorry. While Disney counts differentiates between single subscribers and bundled subscribers, when reporting total subscriber numbers, that's one bucket being reported. Here's a breakdown from this past February that again, lists separately, all Disney Plus, Hulu, and ESPN+ subscribers. ESPN+ is listed at 21.3 million as of 11 months ago. Today, no matter where they come from, that number is about 24.3 million. Many of which came in through the bundle, especially after Disney raised single subscription prices for all its services, but kept the bundle price the same. (https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-thea ... bscribers/)

Simply put, ESPN + does not have 65 million subscribers. If they did, they would report it. They have 24.3 million, and not all of them are sports watchers, as a number just want Hulu and Disney Plus, and get the bundle because it's a good deal.

So the Disney CFO lied on their earnings call?

Try not to trip over your clown shoes my dude.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 8:28 am So the Disney CFO lied on their earnings call?

Try not to trip over your clown shoes my dude.

Here's a transcript for Disney's last earnings call. Please show me where he said ESPN+ has over 60 million subscribers? (https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-tran ... ranscript/) And please explain to me why Disney, if they truly had 3X the amount of ESPN subscribers than being widely reported as 24 million, Disney's Legal Department wouldn't fix the numbers to make it accurate?

What I did find in the earnings call is slightly lower revenue for its streaming services than expected. Again, if ESPN+ had 3X the amount of subscribers, they would use this to increase advertising rates. But that didn't happen, as Disney struggled with churn on their streaming services.

Please, show me direct evidence that ESPN+ has over 60 million subscribers. And that bundled ESPN+ subscribers aren't counted in the 24 million number.

I gave you the link. If you think you’re convincing anyone we should stay in this bullshit conference because somehow ESPN is NOT a sports and entertainment juggernaut you’ve completely lost your mind.

Disney + is set to lose 1.5B this quarter alone and has lost over 6B since it started.

We have it and have watched it once. We have Amazon Prime and watch a few shows and we have Netflix as our go to streamer

I just can’t imagine using a streamer on an everyday basis to watch sports and sports talk and that is why I think the PAC is crazy to put the bulk of its content in the streamers hands

CardiacCats97 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 8:57 am I gave you the link. If you think you’re convincing anyone we should stay in this bullshit conference because somehow ESPN is NOT a sports and entertainment juggernaut you’ve completely lost your mind.

The link doesn't state ESPN+ has 60 million subscribers. I've yet to find a link that states it has more than 24.3 million.

And please don't put words in my mouth/keyboard. When have I stated ESPN isn't a sports juggernaut. They are the world leader. But ESPN+? I fail to see how having a game broadcast on + is significantly better than having a game on PAC-12 Network. And EPSN+ is where a number of BIG 12 Tier 3 games will be televised.

Amazon is a risk, because they have very limited experience televising sports. But early returns have been positive. And it's not like the PAC is going to be signing a long-term contract with Amazon that binds us for over a dozen years like the ACC signed with ESPN. Our contract will likely end by 2030. If it's a total failure, at least we'll get paid during the course of the contract.

azcat49 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:05 am Disney + is set to lose 1.5B this quarter alone and has lost over 6B since it started.

We have it and have watched it once. We have Amazon Prime and watch a few shows and we have Netflix as our go to streamer

I just can’t imagine using a streamer on an everyday basis to watch sports and sports talk and that is why I think the PAC is crazy to put the bulk of its content in the streamers hands

People will go to where the content is. I haven't had cable/satellite in like 8 years and haven't had live streaming tv in like 3. I only get my content from Disney plus, YouTube, HBO max, Netflix, etc.. especially younger people will absolutely watch on a streaming service if it's there

ASUHATER! wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:39 am

azcat49 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:05 am Disney + is set to lose 1.5B this quarter alone and has lost over 6B since it started.

We have it and have watched it once. We have Amazon Prime and watch a few shows and we have Netflix as our go to streamer

I just can’t imagine using a streamer on an everyday basis to watch sports and sports talk and that is why I think the PAC is crazy to put the bulk of its content in the streamers hands

People will go to where the content is. I haven't had cable/satellite in like 8 years and haven't had live streaming tv in like 3. I only get my content from Disney plus, YouTube, HBO max, Netflix, etc.. especially younger people will absolutely watch on a streaming service if it's there

That works great if it's content people want to watch, but no one wants to watch Pac games now. Putting the bulk of them on steaming isn't going to suddenly bring more eyeballs to them. Especially a platform like Amazon that isn't known for being a sports destination outside the NFL.

AZCatGirl wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:36 pm

ASUHATER! wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:39 am

azcat49 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:05 am Disney + is set to lose 1.5B this quarter alone and has lost over 6B since it started.

We have it and have watched it once. We have Amazon Prime and watch a few shows and we have Netflix as our go to streamer

I just can’t imagine using a streamer on an everyday basis to watch sports and sports talk and that is why I think the PAC is crazy to put the bulk of its content in the streamers hands

People will go to where the content is. I haven't had cable/satellite in like 8 years and haven't had live streaming tv in like 3. I only get my content from Disney plus, YouTube, HBO max, Netflix, etc.. especially younger people will absolutely watch on a streaming service if it's there

That works great if it's content people want to watch, but no one wants to watch Pac games now. Putting the bulk of them on steaming isn't going to suddenly bring more eyeballs to them. Especially a platform like Amazon that isn't known for being a sports destination outside the NFL.

Stop making sense and speaking truths Cat Girl.

I do love that's much easier for me to watch North Dakota St's woman's lacrosse team play on ESPN+ than an Arizona football game.

I don’t understand why any U of A fan or alumn would give espn more money by getting espn plus

PHXCATS wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 10:19 am I don’t understand why any U of A fan or alumn would give espn more money by getting espn plus

I don't understand why any U of A fan would want to stay in a conference where they employed a head of officials that put out a bounty on the head of our head coach in basketball.

PHXCATS wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 10:19 am I don’t understand why any U of A fan or alumn would give espn more money by getting espn plus

It’s about expanding the fan base. We all know that if we were just trying to get the best deal for the diehard fans it would be having every game on Amazon. But how do you expand the interest in the team and the conference? By putting it where casual fans can encounter it organically in the streaming platform they go to for college basketball, college football, NBA, UFC, and so on.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 10:44 am

PHXCATS wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 10:19 am I don’t understand why any U of A fan or alumn would give espn more money by getting espn plus

It’s about expanding the fan base. We all know that if we were just trying to get the best deal for the diehard fans it would be having every game on Amazon. But how do you expand the interest in the team and the conference? By putting it where casual fans can encounter it organically in the streaming platform they go to for college basketball, college football, NBA, UFC, and so on.

No UA games have ever been on espn+ and there won't be this year or next

You are just giving that absolute shit organization who fucked US more money and more credibility

Fuck espn.

I want whatever conference Arizona is in to have its games be able to be seen by as many people as possible and to be seen on the platforms people are most likely to seek out sports. Simple as that.

CardiacCats97 wrote: Sat Dec 10, 2022 11:20 am I want whatever conference Arizona is in to have its games be able to be seen by as many people as possible and to be seen on the platforms people are most likely to seek out sports. Simple as that.

People of my generation (boomers) excel at channel surfing on TV, and stopping at interesting games even if they have no interest in either team.

And obviously, that's the success of ESPN with viewership numbers. With having to stream games, that really requires effort to watch a game.