At some point, if there isn't a deal that makes everyone happy after 8 months just shut the damn thing down and let everyone go their separate ways.
Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff visiiting SMU
117,270 Views |
1094 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by calumnus
First problem is that George hasn't presented a deal, supposedly just what he is hearing. I can see why the WSU AD said to Wilner the problem wasn't that the programs were not together, but that they were waiting and that timing was more of an issue (I'm paraphrasing)tequila4kapp said:
At some point, if there isn't a deal that makes everyone happy after 8 months just shut the damn thing down and let everyone go their separate ways.
If we go with Amazon, at least we will be on PRIME time. With free punt returns!
CALiforniALUM said:
If we go with Amazon, at least we will be on PRIME time. With free punt returns!
With Colorado they can offer Prime on Prime. That has to have some entertainment value.
Colorado will be the most popular 5-7 team ever this upcoming season.calumnus said:With Colorado they can offer Prime on Prime. That has to have some entertainment value.CALiforniALUM said:
If we go with Amazon, at least we will be on PRIME time. With free punt returns!
CLIP: Pac 12 may have missed its best deal months ago, which could lead it to Apple.
— Andrew Marchand (@AndrewMarchand) February 22, 2023
POD: https://t.co/lyi8nmHjgE pic.twitter.com/moDl4PllhO
Arizona State Ray Anderson tells Arizona Sports new @pac12 deal, "may not be the projections originally contemplated but will be a solid enough financial situation to keep this conference together."
— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) February 23, 2023
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
50 million subscribers - 25 million paid subscribers. The rest are people who have deals - like ATT get apple TV for a year, etc. Similar to HBO...I got it from ATT phone. But I watch HBO max all the time. And my apple plan is currently in use in Santa Barbara and San Diego with my kids as well and their roommates (yes I do pay for Apple TV - plus cable, plus Amazon, plus a bunch of others).berserkeley said:Does anyone see this as a positive sign? A quick Google search suggests that Apple TV+ has 20-25 million subscribers and a 6% market share coming in after HBO Max, Disney+, Amazon Prime, and Netflix.calumnus said:BigDaddy said:NEWS: Apple has emerged as a potential landing spot for Pac 12, The Post has learned.
— Andrew Marchand (@AndrewMarchand) February 21, 2023
More in story ...https://t.co/MMALO2BkFO
Crazy that we are not at least owning the "After Dark" broadcast slot. What will ESPN broadcast after the SEC games? MWC games?
Having cut the cord and living out on an island in the Pacific, a streaming deal with Apple is actually really great for me and my wife. I just don't see it being great for Cal.
Perhaps Kliavkoff can find a way to get Myspace to stream Pac-12 games ....
PAC 12 network has direct to consumer reach of 12 million subscribers - about a third of California. Exciting distribution that Cal was on 8 times last year.
There is no doubt I would prefer to watch all the sports on my comcast linked TIVO, but frankly it is pretty easy to switch the input on the TV and get to the there inputs.
My Xfinity averages around $320-$350 per month. Plus, separately, all the streamers (Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, Apple TV+, Hulu). I probably watch HBO Max more than the others, which comes with my Xfinity service since I subscribe to HBO. But I need to cancel a lot of the paid Xfinity cable extras I almost never watch anymore (Showtime, Starz, Curiosity Stream and some others). That would reduce my Xfinity bill by more than $50 per month, easily.
Oski87 said:50 million subscribers - 25 million paid subscribers. The rest are people who have deals - like ATT get apple TV for a year, etc. Similar to HBO...I got it from ATT phone. But I watch HBO max all the time. And my apple plan is currently in use in Santa Barbara and San Diego with my kids as well and their roommates (yes I do pay for Apple TV - plus cable, plus Amazon, plus a bunch of others).berserkeley said:Does anyone see this as a positive sign? A quick Google search suggests that Apple TV+ has 20-25 million subscribers and a 6% market share coming in after HBO Max, Disney+, Amazon Prime, and Netflix.calumnus said:BigDaddy said:NEWS: Apple has emerged as a potential landing spot for Pac 12, The Post has learned.
— Andrew Marchand (@AndrewMarchand) February 21, 2023
More in story ...https://t.co/MMALO2BkFO
Crazy that we are not at least owning the "After Dark" broadcast slot. What will ESPN broadcast after the SEC games? MWC games?
Having cut the cord and living out on an island in the Pacific, a streaming deal with Apple is actually really great for me and my wife. I just don't see it being great for Cal.
Perhaps Kliavkoff can find a way to get Myspace to stream Pac-12 games ....
PAC 12 network has direct to consumer reach of 12 million subscribers - about a third of California. Exciting distribution that Cal was on 8 times last year.
There is no doubt I would prefer to watch all the sports on my comcast linked TIVO, but frankly it is pretty easy to switch the input on the TV and get to the there inputs.
Pac 12 network distribution was obviously not good, but you are mixing up TV households and population - CA has around 14 million TV households and the Pac 12 states around 25 million households. In market TV penetration rates were decent for p12N, but there were terrible options out of market.
Apple TV would at least give every tv viewer in the country and reasonable way to watch P12 content. Non fans won't buy it, but they wound have watched anyway. For actual p12 fans - especially those who have cut to the cord or are thinking about it - a compete package with apple tv (Like MLS) would be great because they would get all games. I have no idea on the details, no one does. If the AD at ASU believes the $$$ ate enough to work for stability, that is a very positive sign, since ASU has an easy path to jump to the Big 12.
Yep, the statement has to mean a number bigger than 31.6.ColoradoBear said:Oski87 said:50 million subscribers - 25 million paid subscribers. The rest are people who have deals - like ATT get apple TV for a year, etc. Similar to HBO...I got it from ATT phone. But I watch HBO max all the time. And my apple plan is currently in use in Santa Barbara and San Diego with my kids as well and their roommates (yes I do pay for Apple TV - plus cable, plus Amazon, plus a bunch of others).berserkeley said:Does anyone see this as a positive sign? A quick Google search suggests that Apple TV+ has 20-25 million subscribers and a 6% market share coming in after HBO Max, Disney+, Amazon Prime, and Netflix.calumnus said:BigDaddy said:NEWS: Apple has emerged as a potential landing spot for Pac 12, The Post has learned.
— Andrew Marchand (@AndrewMarchand) February 21, 2023
More in story ...https://t.co/MMALO2BkFO
Crazy that we are not at least owning the "After Dark" broadcast slot. What will ESPN broadcast after the SEC games? MWC games?
Having cut the cord and living out on an island in the Pacific, a streaming deal with Apple is actually really great for me and my wife. I just don't see it being great for Cal.
Perhaps Kliavkoff can find a way to get Myspace to stream Pac-12 games ....
PAC 12 network has direct to consumer reach of 12 million subscribers - about a third of California. Exciting distribution that Cal was on 8 times last year.
There is no doubt I would prefer to watch all the sports on my comcast linked TIVO, but frankly it is pretty easy to switch the input on the TV and get to the there inputs.
Pac 12 network distribution was obviously not good, but you are mixing up TV households and population - CA has around 14 million TV households and the Pac 12 states around 25 million households. In market TV penetration rates were decent for p12N, but there were terrible options out of market.
Apple TV would at least give every tv viewer in the country and reasonable way to watch P12 content. Non fans won't buy it, but they wound have watched anyway. For actual p12 fans - especially those who have cut to the cord or are thinking about it - a compete package with apple tv (Like MLS) would be great because they would get all games. I have no idea on the details, no one does. If the AD at ASU believes the $$$ ate enough to work for stability, that is a very positive sign, since ASU has an easy path to jump to the Big 12.
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
If the deal is mostly streaming, that will accelerate the death of the Pac-12. Streaming is just not competitive.
MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
ColoradoBear said:MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
So, it looks like the new contract will likely generate more money than we currently receive, but not as much as the even the Big12 gets.
While I am sure Ray Anderson (ASU AD) has some influence the ASU vote resides with ASU President Michael Crow. Crow was perhaps the biggest supporter of Larry Scott and wants to stay in the P12. He is not happy with Kliavkoff though if you believe the reporting.ColoradoBear said:Oski87 said:50 million subscribers - 25 million paid subscribers. The rest are people who have deals - like ATT get apple TV for a year, etc. Similar to HBO...I got it from ATT phone. But I watch HBO max all the time. And my apple plan is currently in use in Santa Barbara and San Diego with my kids as well and their roommates (yes I do pay for Apple TV - plus cable, plus Amazon, plus a bunch of others).berserkeley said:Does anyone see this as a positive sign? A quick Google search suggests that Apple TV+ has 20-25 million subscribers and a 6% market share coming in after HBO Max, Disney+, Amazon Prime, and Netflix.calumnus said:BigDaddy said:NEWS: Apple has emerged as a potential landing spot for Pac 12, The Post has learned.
— Andrew Marchand (@AndrewMarchand) February 21, 2023
More in story ...https://t.co/MMALO2BkFO
Crazy that we are not at least owning the "After Dark" broadcast slot. What will ESPN broadcast after the SEC games? MWC games?
Having cut the cord and living out on an island in the Pacific, a streaming deal with Apple is actually really great for me and my wife. I just don't see it being great for Cal.
Perhaps Kliavkoff can find a way to get Myspace to stream Pac-12 games ....
PAC 12 network has direct to consumer reach of 12 million subscribers - about a third of California. Exciting distribution that Cal was on 8 times last year.
There is no doubt I would prefer to watch all the sports on my comcast linked TIVO, but frankly it is pretty easy to switch the input on the TV and get to the there inputs.
Pac 12 network distribution was obviously not good, but you are mixing up TV households and population - CA has around 14 million TV households and the Pac 12 states around 25 million households. In market TV penetration rates were decent for p12N, but there were terrible options out of market.
Apple TV would at least give every tv viewer in the country and reasonable way to watch P12 content. Non fans won't buy it, but they wound have watched anyway. For actual p12 fans - especially those who have cut to the cord or are thinking about it - a compete package with apple tv (Like MLS) would be great because they would get all games. I have no idea on the details, no one does. If the AD at ASU believes the $$$ ate enough to work for stability, that is a very positive sign, since ASU has an easy path to jump to the Big 12.
The low number Anderson and others mention could be distributed unevenly. There is talk that SDSU and SMU would come even with reduced shares. There has been discussions about uneven distributions of post season revenues. The CFP payouts once expanded also provide additional revenues. The money IMO can be worked out. What is for me the greater concern is the distribution. If streaming is the major distributor exposure will suffer.
What I really want to know is why is there now a real interest in leaking through the press. First the unity statement. Then WSU President Kirk Schulz does an interview with Wilner. Now Ray Anderson (who does not have a vote) decides to give an interview. There seems to be multiple reports daily regarding the P12 media deal.
It does seem like the P12 is treading water. That they do not have any great options. JMO but this whole deal seems to hinge around does UO and UW have a path to the B1G for 2024. I think this low reported number is not low enough to get the 4 corner schools to move. Unless the deal is virtually 100% streaming. But UW and UO are in a different frame of mind.
The timing of a deal is important. There seems to be some belief that a deal could be done by mid March. But there is talk about mid April being sort of a true deadline. The B1G may have a new commissioner by then. Interesting.
Kliavkoff knows the target he has to hit. He has to hit a number that exceeds what the Big 12 expansion rate would be for any new schools entering. From ESPN, if the Big 12 expands, the new schools would get 63% pro rata revenue. That's about $20 million. Get above $20M to keep the conference together and to have it make sense for SDSU and SMU to join.calumnus said:ColoradoBear said:MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
So, it looks like the new contract will likely generate more money than we currently receive, but not as much as the even the Big12 gets.
Those are all moving targets and will be moving until a deal is actually approved. The Four Corners schools love the SoCal recruiting base, so they may be willing to accept "slightly" (however defined) less money from the p12 for trips west, and remain. The Arizona schools have thousands of students from California and continued contact with the state may sway Presidents' votes.philly1121 said:Kliavkoff knows the target he has to hit. He has to hit a number that exceeds what the Big 12 expansion rate would be for any new schools entering. From ESPN, if the Big 12 expands, the new schools would get 63% pro rata revenue. That's about $20 million. Get above $20M to keep the conference together and to have it make sense for SDSU and SMU to join.calumnus said:ColoradoBear said:MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
So, it looks like the new contract will likely generate more money than we currently receive, but not as much as the even the Big12 gets.
The 63% figure can be changed anytime, if it's worthwhile for the current members of the B12 to do so. For example, I have no doubt that they'd offer Oregon and U-Dub full shares if they'd join today. (But then the PNW schools are stalking the BiG.)
As Yogi was fond of saying, 'it ain't over until its over'
IMO that's not enough.philly1121 said:Kliavkoff knows the target he has to hit. He has to hit a number that exceeds what the Big 12 expansion rate would be for any new schools entering. From ESPN, if the Big 12 expands, the new schools would get 63% pro rata revenue. That's about $20 million. Get above $20M to keep the conference together and to have it make sense for SDSU and SMU to join.calumnus said:So, it looks like the new contract will likely generate more money than we currently receive, but not as much as the even the Big12 gets.ColoradoBear said:Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
Any amount below $30 million just invites the Big Ten, whenever they decide to expand again, to offer $30 million/year to any Pac school they want (perhaps with the promise that they'll get a full share in the next Big Ten TV contract). Anything under $30 million also makes the outreach from Pac members to the Big Ten even more desperate than it already is.
Just barely more than the Big 12 could offer to a Pac team isn't enough to keep members around, either. The Big 12 offers stability, because they have no one the Big Ten would ever add. Despite what the ASU AD said the other day, ASU would be the first school to jump to the Big 12. ASU isn't an AAU member (whereas UA, UU, and CU all are), thus ASU has no prospect of even a longshot invitation to the Big Ten, so they have nothing to lose by locking in longterm stability in the Big 12.
BearSD said:IMO that's not enough.philly1121 said:Kliavkoff knows the target he has to hit. He has to hit a number that exceeds what the Big 12 expansion rate would be for any new schools entering. From ESPN, if the Big 12 expands, the new schools would get 63% pro rata revenue. That's about $20 million. Get above $20M to keep the conference together and to have it make sense for SDSU and SMU to join.calumnus said:So, it looks like the new contract will likely generate more money than we currently receive, but not as much as the even the Big12 gets.ColoradoBear said:Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
Any amount below $30 million just invites the Big Ten, whenever they decide to expand again, to offer $30 million/year to any Pac school they want (perhaps with the promise that they'll get a full share in the next Big Ten TV contract). Anything under $30 million also makes the outreach from Pac members to the Big Ten even more desperate than it already is.
Just barely more than the Big 12 could offer to a Pac team isn't enough to keep members around, either. The Big 12 offers stability, because they have no one the Big Ten would ever add. Despite what the ASU AD said the other day, ASU would be the first school to jump to the Big 12. ASU isn't an AAU member (whereas UA, UU, and CU all are), thus ASU has no prospect of even a longshot invitation to the Big Ten, so they have nothing to lose by locking in longterm stability in the Big 12.
If this indeed heads Apple's way, it seems to me that they'd want the Pac to be healthy and stable as they build their sports business. I know from somebody at MLS that Apple is spending a ton of money on their new MLS deal that exclusively broadcasts all MLS games. I would think that Pac 10 football would have at least as high a viewership as MLS, thus Apple should pay enough to ensure that the Pac 10 teams will be loyal to the conference. I'm curious what would happen to the Pac 12 network and all the coverage of the Olympic sports. I'm probably one of a few people who looks forward to seeing a lot of the non-revenue sports and hope that survives somehow.
juarezbear said:BearSD said:IMO that's not enough.philly1121 said:Kliavkoff knows the target he has to hit. He has to hit a number that exceeds what the Big 12 expansion rate would be for any new schools entering. From ESPN, if the Big 12 expands, the new schools would get 63% pro rata revenue. That's about $20 million. Get above $20M to keep the conference together and to have it make sense for SDSU and SMU to join.calumnus said:So, it looks like the new contract will likely generate more money than we currently receive, but not as much as the even the Big12 gets.ColoradoBear said:Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
Any amount below $30 million just invites the Big Ten, whenever they decide to expand again, to offer $30 million/year to any Pac school they want (perhaps with the promise that they'll get a full share in the next Big Ten TV contract). Anything under $30 million also makes the outreach from Pac members to the Big Ten even more desperate than it already is.
Just barely more than the Big 12 could offer to a Pac team isn't enough to keep members around, either. The Big 12 offers stability, because they have no one the Big Ten would ever add. Despite what the ASU AD said the other day, ASU would be the first school to jump to the Big 12. ASU isn't an AAU member (whereas UA, UU, and CU all are), thus ASU has no prospect of even a longshot invitation to the Big Ten, so they have nothing to lose by locking in longterm stability in the Big 12.
If this indeed heads Apple's way, it seems to me that they'd want the Pac to be healthy and stable as they build their sports business. I know from somebody at MLS that Apple is spending a ton of money on their new MLS deal that exclusively broadcasts all MLS games. I would think that Pac 10 football would have at least as high a viewership as MLS, thus Apple should pay enough to ensure that the Pac 10 teams will be loyal to the conference. I'm curious what would happen to the Pac 12 network and all the coverage of the Olympic sports. I'm probably one of a few people who looks forward to seeing a lot of the non-revenue sports and hope that survives somehow.
I have asked this question in other threads but have never gotten a response. Shouldnt the media companies involved in pac-12 media rights look at this as an investment? I mean if I'm Apple, I'm thinking hey - let me get these teams closer competitively to what the B1G offers so that they can potentially be as good a product. I mean imagine a conference where Cal, Stanford, UW, Oregon, and Utah are all strong. That would be a super exciting conference which a bunch of teams like Ore St, WSU, SDSU also being exciting and competitive. If they low ball us or put us many tens of millions behind B1G we will just continue to be a crap product.
I think these media companies should get more involved in how the schools especially Cal run their program. Like venture capitalists - we are going to give XX million / per year but need you to make the following changes...etc.
Are the media companies looking at this as an investment or just getting inventory on the cheap? The former can provide a lot higher ROI if done right.
If this report of high 20s is accurate then I predict the conference is dead.philly1121 said:Kliavkoff knows the target he has to hit. He has to hit a number that exceeds what the Big 12 expansion rate would be for any new schools entering. From ESPN, if the Big 12 expands, the new schools would get 63% pro rata revenue. That's about $20 million. Get above $20M to keep the conference together and to have it make sense for SDSU and SMU to join.calumnus said:ColoradoBear said:MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
So, it looks like the new contract will likely generate more money than we currently receive, but not as much as the even the Big12 gets.
Remember, the P12 is protecting against two conferences, not just the B12. That number works great to protect against the 4 corner schools leaving for the B12. But if I am the B10 and the P12 number is say 29m, I'm coming in and offering UW, UO, Cal and Furd 35m with a timeline for getting to full payment. Maybe 40m.
How could the schools say no? They'd get 5 west coast games per year in their pod. They could schedule non-con games as they currently do to manage travel. That leaves 4 games. 2 of those will be home. So for 6-11m extra dollars your football team travels twice. Same basic dynamic for all other sports. AND the schools are on a timeline for substantially more money than they will ever make in the P12. Impact to student athletes is negligible vs traveling to Dallas, SD and Seattle.
From the B12 perspective they will own the west coast, own the late time frames on Saturday and they will own the #2, #6, #12 and #21 tv markets...all at a substantial discount. They give SC/UCLA their supposedly promised west coast pod (again, at a huge discount). They gain 3 really great academic schools that are very aligned to their academic mission. And by adding SC and Furd they make a potential ND addition that much more appealing/likely to the Irish.
Econ141 said:juarezbear said:BearSD said:IMO that's not enough.philly1121 said:Kliavkoff knows the target he has to hit. He has to hit a number that exceeds what the Big 12 expansion rate would be for any new schools entering. From ESPN, if the Big 12 expands, the new schools would get 63% pro rata revenue. That's about $20 million. Get above $20M to keep the conference together and to have it make sense for SDSU and SMU to join.calumnus said:So, it looks like the new contract will likely generate more money than we currently receive, but not as much as the even the Big12 gets.ColoradoBear said:Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
Any amount below $30 million just invites the Big Ten, whenever they decide to expand again, to offer $30 million/year to any Pac school they want (perhaps with the promise that they'll get a full share in the next Big Ten TV contract). Anything under $30 million also makes the outreach from Pac members to the Big Ten even more desperate than it already is.
Just barely more than the Big 12 could offer to a Pac team isn't enough to keep members around, either. The Big 12 offers stability, because they have no one the Big Ten would ever add. Despite what the ASU AD said the other day, ASU would be the first school to jump to the Big 12. ASU isn't an AAU member (whereas UA, UU, and CU all are), thus ASU has no prospect of even a longshot invitation to the Big Ten, so they have nothing to lose by locking in longterm stability in the Big 12.
If this indeed heads Apple's way, it seems to me that they'd want the Pac to be healthy and stable as they build their sports business. I know from somebody at MLS that Apple is spending a ton of money on their new MLS deal that exclusively broadcasts all MLS games. I would think that Pac 10 football would have at least as high a viewership as MLS, thus Apple should pay enough to ensure that the Pac 10 teams will be loyal to the conference. I'm curious what would happen to the Pac 12 network and all the coverage of the Olympic sports. I'm probably one of a few people who looks forward to seeing a lot of the non-revenue sports and hope that survives somehow.
I have asked this question in other threads but have never gotten a response. Shouldnt the media companies involved in pac-12 media rights look at this as an investment? I mean if I'm Apple, I'm thinking hey - let me get these teams closer competitively to what the B1G offers so that they can potentially be as good a product. I mean imagine a conference where Cal, Stanford, UW, Oregon, and Utah are all strong. That would be a super exciting conference which a bunch of teams like Ore St, WSU, SDSU also being exciting and competitive. If they low ball us or put us many tens of millions behind B1G we will just continue to be a crap product.
I think these media companies should get more involved in how the schools especially Cal run their program. Like venture capitalists - we are going to give XX million / per year but need you to make the following changes...etc.
Are the media companies looking at this as an investment or just getting inventory on the cheap? The former can provide a lot higher ROI if done right.
I agree that would be best. I also think long term that of the pac 12, Big 12 and the ACC all went to a single platform, that would totally change the dynamic. The ESPN deal by those two conferences would be more effective at a single streamer. ESPN is underselling their streaming capabilities because of the carriage fees but frankly I could see Apple buying ESPN and building off that as a strategy. Disney sees that as an underperforming asset.
Apple still has not made formal offer for Pac-12’s media rights, but ION television has emerged as a potential Pac-12 partner, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. ION TV is owned by E.W. Scripps Company, which has 61 local TV stations nationwide & launched Scripps Sports this year
— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) February 24, 2023
Who the hell is that?
Apple / streaming is one thing...man, something like ION potentially seems really small time.
Apple / streaming is one thing...man, something like ION potentially seems really small time.
this seems appropriate
ION/Scripps Sports is not involved in the Pac-12's TV negotiations, a source with direct knowledge of the situation tells @TheAthletic.
— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) February 24, 2023
okaydo said:Apple still has not made formal offer for Pac-12’s media rights, but ION television has emerged as a potential Pac-12 partner, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. ION TV is owned by E.W. Scripps Company, which has 61 local TV stations nationwide & launched Scripps Sports this year
— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) February 24, 2023
Not great. But I'm willing to withhold complete judgment. I mean weren't ACC games in the Bay Area playing on Channel 20 a couple years back, through some syndication deal?
Looks like ION/Scripps has 44 owned & operated TV stations nationwide plus 20 or so more stations that carry their programming. According to Wikipedia they're in the top 20 markets and 37 of the top 50 and they cover 64% of the US population. That's better penetration than the Pac-12 Networks.
I would want to know the following:
- Is ION going to invest in HD upgrades, particularly for sports programming?
- How many households have access to ION today?
- Will we get some 12:30 and 3:30 Saturday games, which would be the main reason to do this? I hate the idea of ceding those exclusive windows to the B1G, SEC and ND on CBS, ABC, NBC and ESPN. If we want any of our games at those times it has to be another linear TV network. Would have preferred Turner. But why not ION??
In my view, while it would still reek of desperation, ION would be better exposure than Apple or streaming in general. Maybe they can get the 2nd or 3rd pick (or both?) each week and our top pick can go to ESPN? Assuming they're still interested .
That is assuming a couple things.tequila4kapp said:If this report of high 20s is accurate then I predict the conference is dead.philly1121 said:Kliavkoff knows the target he has to hit. He has to hit a number that exceeds what the Big 12 expansion rate would be for any new schools entering. From ESPN, if the Big 12 expands, the new schools would get 63% pro rata revenue. That's about $20 million. Get above $20M to keep the conference together and to have it make sense for SDSU and SMU to join.calumnus said:ColoradoBear said:MTbear22 said:
Supposedly Utah AD is saying high 20s and mostly streaming. Ray Anderson from ASU was quoted saying something like "not like initial projections but should be enough to hold us together."
Just for reference, the media payout for the final 2023-24 contract year will be $26.75 million.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2013/06/19/Media/Pac12.aspx
Length of contract and annual escalator amount is important too.
So, it looks like the new contract will likely generate more money than we currently receive, but not as much as the even the Big12 gets.
Remember, the P12 is protecting against two conferences, not just the B12. That number works great to protect against the 4 corner schools leaving for the B12. But if I am the B10 and the P12 number is say 29m, I'm coming in and offering UW, UO, Cal and Furd 35m with a timeline for getting to full payment. Maybe 40m.
How could the schools say no? They'd get 5 west coast games per year in their pod. They could schedule non-con games as they currently do to manage travel. That leaves 4 games. 2 of those will be home. So for 6-11m extra dollars your football team travels twice. Same basic dynamic for all other sports. AND the schools are on a timeline for substantially more money than they will ever make in the P12. Impact to student athletes is negligible vs traveling to Dallas, SD and Seattle.
From the B12 perspective they will own the west coast, own the late time frames on Saturday and they will own the #2, #6, #12 and #21 tv markets...all at a substantial discount. They give SC/UCLA their supposedly promised west coast pod (again, at a huge discount). They gain 3 really great academic schools that are very aligned to their academic mission. And by adding SC and Furd they make a potential ND addition that much more appealing/likely to the Irish.
First, that the Big 10 is interested in creating a West Coast "pod".
Secondly, that USC and UCLA were promised a West Coast "pod" prior to their agreeing to go to to the B1G and even making that a condition. This seems completely far fetched. We would have heard about this and it would have made all of this marketing maneuvering unnecessary and pointless.
I think we always create a theory or a plan that is based on what is best for us. Not necessarily looking at what is best for the B1G or the Big 12. The B1G has stated that they are done with expansion. They have also said that they don't want to be responsible for the demise of the Pac 10. The next move for the B1G as it relates to expansion and the Pac 10 is Oregon and UW. But we've heard nothing concrete.
As far as the Big 12 is concerned, this is the more visible threat. The Big 12 sees value in entering the West Coast. It would make it a truly coast to coast conference. They see value in ASU's football program, Arizona's basketball program, Utah's football program and Deion Sander's CU. They're probably looking at SDSU's football and basketball programs as well as Fresno State football.
I think you're probably right in that if the number comes in at $20-25M, the conference likely folds in 4 years. But each of those schools listed above - Oregon and UW included - have a label attached to one or more of their revenue athletic programs: up and coming.
And now, with recent posts on Twitter - if Apple hasn't had discussion with us and instead we have ION TV - which today was the first I have heard of it - it doesn't bode well. Six schools likely head off to the B1G and Big 12, leaving 4 to figure things out.
McMurphy stated that Apple hadn't made a formal offer - which is different that not having discussions. Where are you seeing that?philly1121 said:
And now, with recent posts on Twitter - if Apple hasn't had discussion with us and instead we have ION TV - which today was the first I have heard of it - it doesn't bode well. Six schools likely head off to the B1G and Big 12, leaving 4 to figure things out.
btw; ION is carried by several cable networks including Spectrum and Cox, as well as Direct TV. (Hey Larry Scott..)
On the BI side someone who knows these things asserts that SC was promised a pod.
The B10 has said they are done expanding for now. "For now" is broad enough to encompass the opportunity I describe above.
Rutgers is terrible. NY City is a terrible college football market. Rutgers reportedly is still only getting something like $60m next season. Potentially getting the 4 schools and 3 markets at a number like I described is such a tremendous bargain for the B10 they'd be asinine not to jump at it.
The B10 has said they are done expanding for now. "For now" is broad enough to encompass the opportunity I describe above.
Rutgers is terrible. NY City is a terrible college football market. Rutgers reportedly is still only getting something like $60m next season. Potentially getting the 4 schools and 3 markets at a number like I described is such a tremendous bargain for the B10 they'd be asinine not to jump at it.
philly1121 said:
That is assuming a couple things.
First, that the Big 10 is interested in creating a West Coast "pod".
Secondly, that USC and UCLA were promised a West Coast "pod" prior to their agreeing to go to to the B1G and even making that a condition. This seems completely far fetched. We would have heard about this and it would have made all of this marketing maneuvering unnecessary and pointless.USC
USC does not want other West Coast schools joining the B1G. They were not crazy about UCLA joining them. but FOX and the B1G wanted it so they were willing to accept it as part of the deal.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
I get it on youtube tv.Big Dog said:
btw; ION is carried by several cable networks including Spectrum and Cox, as well as Direct TV. (Hey Larry Scott..)
Dang it, I was hoping for the Playboy channel. The pregame and postgame content would be very popular.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Portal Edge Defender Deamontae Diggs
by Jim McGill
NFL Draft results and their relation to Collegiate success
by Bear Insider