Streaming isnt reliable enough.

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

How do you mean?

Do you mean no guaranteed payments to the conference/school?

Not enough guaranteed viewers will want to watch Pac-12 games?

Something else altogether?

If the Pac-12 owns the rights to all the games played by Pac-12 schools, then anyone who wants to watch Oregon or USC will pave to buy that $60/yr package. For college football fans who want to follow the sport, that would be a necessity.

Of course, the argument could also be made that outside the Pac-12 footprint, no one cares about the Pac-12 so no one outside the footprint will pay for the streaming service. But if that's the argument, why are ESPN and Fox willing to pay to carry Pac-12 games on their networks?

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

01Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

How do you mean?

Do you mean no guaranteed payments to the conference/school?

Not enough guaranteed viewers will want to watch Pac-12 games?

Something else altogether?

If the Pac-12 owns the rights to all the games played by Pac-12 schools, then anyone who wants to watch Oregon or USC will pave to buy that $60/yr package. For college football fans who want to follow the sport, that would be a necessity.

Of course, the argument could also be made that outside the Pac-12 footprint, no one cares about the Pac-12 so no one outside the footprint will pay for the streaming service. But if that's the argument, why are ESPN and Fox willing to pay to carry Pac-12 games on their networks?

---

I mean streaming has glitches I hate it. Have it on 4k apple tv.Usually it is ok but for the past month I can not get back to the main pac 12 menu without force closing the app. Also once in a while when they break for a non commercial and play music the loop does not go back to the game. Would much prefer it on My Direct Tv.I have complained to pac 12 and gotten no response. Other apps work fine.

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

I mean, eventually everything will probably go to streaming. Is it worth it for the Pac-12 to bet on it happening within the length of the next TV deal?

oskidunker said:

---

01Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

How do you mean?

Do you mean no guaranteed payments to the conference/school?

Not enough guaranteed viewers will want to watch Pac-12 games?

Something else altogether?

If the Pac-12 owns the rights to all the games played by Pac-12 schools, then anyone who wants to watch Oregon or USC will pave to buy that $60/yr package. For college football fans who want to follow the sport, that would be a necessity.

Of course, the argument could also be made that outside the Pac-12 footprint, no one cares about the Pac-12 so no one outside the footprint will pay for the streaming service. But if that's the argument, why are ESPN and Fox willing to pay to carry Pac-12 games on their networks?

---

I mean streaming has glitches I hate it. Have it on 4k apple tv.Usually it is ok but for the past month I can not get back to the main pac 12 menu without force closing the app. Also once in a while when they break for a non commercial and play music the loop does not go back to the game. Would much prefer it on My Direct Tv.I have complained to pac 12 and gotten no response. Other apps work fine.

---

But if pac12 partnered with ESPN or Fox, wouldn't that solve the issue? When I had Pac12, I had streaming issues. But I don't recall any issues with other streaming services (except when my provider's router started getting wonky).

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

Sports bars will begin using streaming or cable instead of DirecTV as soon as DirecTV loses its exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. Once that happens, it's a level playing field where everyone has to compete on price, and DirecTV's prices are not competitive.

BearSD said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

Sports bars will begin using streaming or cable instead of DirecTV as soon as DirecTV loses its exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. Once that happens, it's a level playing field where everyone has to compete on price, and DirecTV's prices are not competitive.

---

A lot of sports bars around Colorado have comcast + directv. DTV charges a lot more for commercial packages than for consumer packages and it's based on the size of the bar/restaurant (fire code occupancy). Bars with Sunday Ticket are actually pretty rare because of the pricing - casual restaurants that have bars are not in the game due to the charge by occupancy.

Even without NFL, the commercial DTV rates are like $300+ per month, so having both cable for the RSNs + DTV for NFL would not be a major additional expense in many situations.

Thing about the p12 net is all the games on it are basically niche games, so they are just going on the back corner TVs anyway.

I feel like the sports bar thing is very overplayed when it comes to the p12 net and DTV. The number of people that watch college football at home dwarfs the number at bars. Bars w/ sunday ticket also are paying a huge price premium for that service. There really is no extra income to be had from these bars having p12 net.

And that's the issue- just like with in person attendence vs late game times, the conference office is going to have to make a choice in the nextrv contract. Revenue or exposure. TV revenue or in person fans. I dont see the p12 getting both to the extent of the BT and SEC and if someone says otherwise, they are probably a snake oil salesmen.

Larry came closer than I thought he would, but there was an amount of BS in his salesmanship. At the same time if the schools had I structed Scott to renegotiate to get some more fan friendly contracts by giving up some revenue (a few million per school per year), the p12 could have better exposure and better gametimes for fans.

P12 Net could also be more profitable if it cut on the expense side. Fewer live events is a must. Streaming only for the remaining regional stuff that other conferences put on espn+ or equivalabe. Figure out how to do a studio show for football without having to pay for a full production facility for the rest of the year.

If going streaming, a partner that handles the tech would be helpful to improve quality and reduce development costs. For instance using xfinity stream is far superior to the p12 app.

calumnus said:

---

Maybe pull someone with both PAC-12 and ESPN/Disney ties? The key has to be media and revenue generation.

---

A gambling site as a new revenue stream?

Stanford Jonah said:

---

71Bear said:

---

philbert said:

---

Hallelujah!

---

Be careful what you wish for...

While the composition of the CEO group has changed quite a bit since Scott was hire, I am not convinced their desire to significantly change the course of the conference is any different.

Of course, if they select an SEC executive, that would tell us they are serious about changing the direction of the conference. OTOH, another hire with no administrative experience in the college ranks would just be more of the same.

The devil is in the detail.......

---

Yep. Pay for a *******ed experienced AD from a real power conference. No more on the job training ideas like Canzano suggesting Rick Neuheisel. Get somebody who understands that the business of college sports is MAKING MONEY.

---

Hello, Greg Byrne.....

What about Jack Swarbrick, the AD for Notre Dame?

He has Pac-12 roots (Stanford).

He was once considered to lead the Big-12.

Would this job be considered beneath him? He makes about $3M/year right now so he could get a nice salary bump.

Remember what I said about being hopeful?

Any chance the new guy can cut a deal with direct tv before 2024?

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

I mean, eventually everything will probably go to streaming. Is it worth it for the Pac-12 to bet on it happening within the length of the next TV deal?

---

Serious question, why wouldn't it be? If the Pac-12 can get in on the ground floor and establish itself as the dominant player before any other conference figures it out, wouldn't that be to the conference's advantage?

BearSD said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

Sports bars will begin using streaming or cable instead of DirecTV as soon as DirecTV loses its exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. Once that happens, it's a level playing field where everyone has to compete on price, and DirecTV's prices are not competitive.

---

Serious question, why does this have to be an either or situation? Why can't sports bars have both DirecTV and a la carte streaming?

01Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

Sports bars will begin using streaming or cable instead of DirecTV as soon as DirecTV loses its exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. Once that happens, it's a level playing field where everyone has to compete on price, and DirecTV's prices are not competitive.

---

Serious question, why does this have to be an either or situation? Why can't sports bars have both DirecTV and a la carte streaming?

---

I suppose you could subscribe to cable and DirecTV and a streaming service, but unless each offers something significant that the others don't have, why would you pay for all of them?

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

I mean, eventually everything will probably go to streaming. Is it worth it for the Pac-12 to bet on it happening within the length of the next TV deal?

---

Serious question, why wouldn't it be? If the Pac-12 can get in on the ground floor and establish itself as the dominant player before any other conference figures it out, wouldn't that be to the conference's advantage?

---

I mean, that was also Scott's idea about owning the Pac-12 Network and we saw how that worked out.

BearSD said:

---

01Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

Sports bars will begin using streaming or cable instead of DirecTV as soon as DirecTV loses its exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. Once that happens, it's a level playing field where everyone has to compete on price, and DirecTV's prices are not competitive.

---

Serious question, why does this have to be an either or situation? Why can't sports bars have both DirecTV and a la carte streaming?

---

I suppose you could subscribe to cable and DirecTV and a streaming service, but unless each offers something significant that the others don't have, why would you pay for all of them?

---

The a la carte Pac-12 streaming service would offer something that isn't offered on DirecTV: Pac-12 games. If the service is $5/month or so, why wouldn't a bar decide to subscribe if this could bring in more customers? While I'm not saying this is definitely the price that will be charged, I'm sure you understand that's not the point of that particular argument.

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

I mean, eventually everything will probably go to streaming. Is it worth it for the Pac-12 to bet on it happening within the length of the next TV deal?

---

Serious question, why wouldn't it be? If the Pac-12 can get in on the ground floor and establish itself as the dominant player before any other conference figures it out, wouldn't that be to the conference's advantage?

---

I mean, that was also Scott's idea about owning the Pac-12 Network and we saw how that worked out.

---

Except, he didn't actually do anything with the network's product. He saw it as another TV channel, but he failed to understand that's the value of the network isn't in owning a channel as much as it is in getting people to pay for it.

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

I mean, eventually everything will probably go to streaming. Is it worth it for the Pac-12 to bet on it happening within the length of the next TV deal?

---

Serious question, why wouldn't it be? If the Pac-12 can get in on the ground floor and establish itself as the dominant player before any other conference figures it out, wouldn't that be to the conference's advantage?

---

I mean, that was also Scott's idea about owning the Pac-12 Network and we saw how that worked out.

---

Except, he didn't actually do anything with the network's product. He saw it as another TV channel, but he failed to understand that's the value of the network isn't in owning a channel as much as it is in getting people to pay for it.

---

at the time, everyone thought the cord would be cut shortly in most households and the NFL and NBA were not going to renew TV contracts so they could have their own direct to end user station. Will that didn't happen. The contracts got renewed. Maybe someday it will happen. But not during uncle Larry's tenure.

What great news! This "retirement" should have been forced 4-5 years ago. Next person's contract should be full of incentives.

Our "Championship Game" is on a Friday, and during the height of the rush hour commute. If Scott played any part in that decision, he should have been fired 10 years ago.

wifeisafurd said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

I mean, eventually everything will probably go to streaming. Is it worth it for the Pac-12 to bet on it happening within the length of the next TV deal?

---

Serious question, why wouldn't it be? If the Pac-12 can get in on the ground floor and establish itself as the dominant player before any other conference figures it out, wouldn't that be to the conference's advantage?

---

I mean, that was also Scott's idea about owning the Pac-12 Network and we saw how that worked out.

---

Except, he didn't actually do anything with the network's product. He saw it as another TV channel, but he failed to understand that's the value of the network isn't in owning a channel as much as it is in getting people to pay for it.

---

at the time, everyone thought the cord would be cut shortly in most households and the NFL and NBA were not going to renew TV contracts so they could have their own direct to end user station. Will that didn't happen. The contracts got renewed. Maybe someday it will happen. But not during uncle Larry's tenure.

---

And the reason they renewed? Gobs and gobs and gobs of money were thrown at them to continue to do so.

I'm also not sold on this "$5 a month sub for pac12" being a good idea. Sports bars aren't going to cut it. If there were 10,000 sports bars in the SEC footprint willing to pay that, that's $50,000 a month. If its not a binding contract for year round, that's at most $200,000 a year in that foot print. If it is a year contract thing and we don't have year round good things to show for a sports bar, we're going to get fewer subs.

The money isn't in the sports bars. The money is in the house holds. How many house holds in SEC territory are going to pay 5 dollars a month for a handful of pac12 games that don't make it to the bigger networks? How many would pay even if it meant they didn't get to see pac12 football at all?

Me? Sure, I'd gladly pay 5 bucks a month for the service and right to watch the Cal bears...but just reaching the pac12 audience isn't enough. You need to reach everyone.

This is where cable packages come into play and why they aren't fading away. Even with streaming services there isn't all that much a la cart offerings, and they are all creaping into the 60 dollar a month territory. If Pac12 network is included in their 60 dollar a month package sure they will watch the games, especially if they are good quality games. If its not included, why would they spend more?

If we ever do go full a la cart programming and get rid of all packages, a lot of tv networks are going to die and we are going to start losing out on a lot of content. Do we need ~120 channels many of which show the same re runs over and over again that you can already watch at will on other services like netflix hulu or hbo max? Probably not...but specialty networks, like HGTV, or Pac12 network, are going to die.

01Bear said:

---

With more and more viewers moving away from the cable TV model and since the Pac-12 owns its own content rights, the smart thing to do would be to create a Pac-12 streaming channel or to partner with an existing company that does that. If everyone who followed the Pac-12 paid a subscription fee of $5/month, that could generate decent revenue from August through February. Of course, there are an additional five months where the Pac-12 would need to provide content to prevent the subscriptions from being canceled until August. Of course, there could be an one-time $60 charge for football and basketball season with five months of free Pac-12 streaming after that.

I get that there will also be startup costs as well as costs to run a streaming service and that these costs may end up being more than the subscription fees. If that proves to be the case, then obviously this model would not be a good idea. However, if the model is sustainable and could generate more money for the schools, that may be the better way to go.

In any case, the new Pac-12 commissioner has to be ready and able to address this possibility.

---

The new person will have a year to figure things out. The new contracts will be effective in 2024 and the negotiations occur a couple years before the current contracts expire.

MrGPAC said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Streaming isnt reliable enough.

---

And sports bars, etc., don't use it. As long as DirecTV dominates the sports-fan marketplace you need to be on it.

---

That's just for now. Sports bars will stream games if that's how they are carried. Forty years ago, what sports bar carried cable or satellite TV? They used rabbit ears to show games. When the games moved to cable/antenna, they did what they had to to show the games. Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to streaming?

---

I mean, eventually everything will probably go to streaming. Is it worth it for the Pac-12 to bet on it happening within the length of the next TV deal?

---

Serious question, why wouldn't it be? If the Pac-12 can get in on the ground floor and establish itself as the dominant player before any other conference figures it out, wouldn't that be to the conference's advantage?

---

I mean, that was also Scott's idea about owning the Pac-12 Network and we saw how that worked out.

---

Except, he didn't actually do anything with the network's product. He saw it as another TV channel, but he failed to understand that's the value of the network isn't in owning a channel as much as it is in getting people to pay for it.

---

at the time, everyone thought the cord would be cut shortly in most households and the NFL and NBA were not going to renew TV contracts so they could have their own direct to end user station. Will that didn't happen. The contracts got renewed. Maybe someday it will happen. But not during uncle Larry's tenure.

---

And the reason they renewed? Gobs and gobs and gobs of money were thrown at them to continue to do so.

I'm also not sold on this "$5 a month sub for pac12" being a good idea. Sports bars aren't going to cut it. If there were 10,000 sports bars in the SEC footprint willing to pay that, that's $50,000 a month. If its not a binding contract for year round, that's at most $200,000 a year in that foot print. If it is a year contract thing and we don't have year round good things to show for a sports bar, we're going to get fewer subs.

The money isn't in the sports bars. The money is in the house holds. How many house holds in SEC territory are going to pay 5 dollars a month for a handful of pac12 games that don't make it to the bigger networks? How many would pay even if it meant they didn't get to see pac12 football at all?

Me? Sure, I'd gladly pay 5 bucks a month for the service and right to watch the Cal bears...but just reaching the pac12 audience isn't enough. You need to reach everyone.

This is where cable packages come into play and why they aren't fading away. Even with streaming services there isn't all that much a la cart offerings, and they are all creaping into the 60 dollar a month territory. If Pac12 network is included in their 60 dollar a month package sure they will watch the games, especially if they are good quality games. If its not included, why would they spend more?

If we ever do go full a la cart programming and get rid of all packages, a lot of tv networks are going to die and we are going to start losing out on a lot of content. Do we need ~120 channels many of which show the same re runs over and over again that you can already watch at will on other services like netflix hulu or hbo max? Probably not...but specialty networks, like HGTV, or Pac12 network, are going to die.

---

Like I said before, the $5/month price isn't set in stone. It was intended as an arbitrary example. I agree that the new Pac-12 Commissioner should look into setting a price that covers the network's expenses and also provides the conference schools a hefty annual return. Whether that means the price should be raised from the completely arbitrary and apropos of no knowledge $5/month per subscription i threw out there will be up to the new commissioner and his team to determine.

I also agree the network will have to provide more content. As I mentioned earlier, outside of basketball and football season, that leaves about five months where there's no reason not to cancel a subscription to the Pac-12 network. It's also why I suggested the possibility of offering a $60/year subscription, which basically means the subscription is about $8/month during the football and basketball seasons with five months thrown in free.

That said, maybe part of the content the Pac-12 can provide would be e-sports. Let's face it, most young people today play video games. There's a lot of demand for that kind of content. Why not get ahead of the curve and provide coverage of e-sports teams at the twelve campuses in the conference. Heck, the conference could even host a Pac-12 e-sports championship.

Additionally, it seems that a lot of people like braindead reality TV programming. It shouldn't be difficult to provide more programs to meet that demand. Now that student-athletes can be compensated for use of their NLI in California, it only makes sense to follow a projected top draft pick as he goes through his season and also in preparation for the draft. Providing that kind of coverage would allow the student-athlete to earn some money from his NLI rights and also help his/her school's recruiting efforts with high schoolers.

On top of that, it shouldn't be hard for the conference to come up with some game shows where former conference athletes compete with one another either in the sport(s) in which they lettered or in some other event. I mean, who here wouldn't want to see some of their favorite former Cal athletes suit up in the blue and gold again even if it's to compete against a Furd athlete on something like the Amazing Race?

Heck, I imagine the coaches in each sport would love to have an hour a week where they can present their program in the most positive light to recruits. If each coach who wants it is allowed to have his/her own weekly show, that could also help provide content while helping the coach reach recruits/athletes and also help the coach improve his/her own name/brand recognition.

Simply put, there are endless possibilities for content. The Pac-12 Network doesn't have to be constrained to showing just live sporting events. Arguments that the network won't be able to generate enough content is putting unnecessary constraints on the network based on limited thinking.

There used to be a coaches show when the broadcasts were on Kron and Comcast. I wonder why there was not one on pac12 net. Just a lot of uninteresting stuff.

The new commissioner must be committed to ending gender disparities in college sports and give women's teams more air time. Not doing so is sexist, and we have to fight to end it in all forms