A pragmatic option for Apple is to just form a western conference under the PAC name that is a merger of the two conferences: PAC and MWC.

That solves the MWC exit fee issue and the MWC schools get a bump up in revenue. The PAC schools stay together. Apple sells more subscriptions. In fact, corners the Western US market. There will be unequal revenue. The original PAC gets a bigger cut initially for bringing the deal. But there are variable ways to get more for performance.

Then, the focus becomes market penetration especially in California. Drivable games.

It's becoming clear to me, this adds the most value.

Hawaii Haas said:

---

A pragmatic option for Apple is to just form a western conference under the PAC name that is a merger of the two conferences: PAC and MWC.

That solves the MWC exit fee issue and the MWC schools get a bump up in revenue. The PAC schools stay together. Apple sells more subscriptions. In fact, corners the Western US market. There will be unequal revenue. The original PAC gets a bigger cut initially for bringing the deal. But there are variable ways to get more for performance.

Then, the focus becomes market penetration especially in California. Drivable games.

It's becoming clear to me, this adds the most value.

---

Makes too much sense for our anti-snob snobs.

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

Apple low balled the Pac-12 so they could wait out bidding on an expanding Big Ten or Big 12. Way more inventory now there that all the broadcast carriers can't cover now.

---

Plus the market values of B1G games are much higher than what was left of the PAC-12.

---

Is this the backdoor in? UW and UO is who B1G wants and needs to convince (not much convincing necessary). Then they just need a couple more teams to lessen travel burden on everyone, all sports, and throw in a good market. Enter Apple, with Cal ties and stake in the Bay Area. Do they just add us on after UW/UO finalize?

---

My guess is Cal and Stanford get offered $10 million less than UW and Oregon, we accept and declare it a victory for Christ, then try to figure out how we are going to stem all the red ink. Best option is probably non-revenue sports to the UC dominated Big West.

---

2.) It will be a slap in the face if Apple, our local company with connections to Cal, doesn't fight for us to be part of their deal

---

You think Cal alumni at Apple cared at all about the football program? The engineers and product managers likely never attended a game apart from the Big Game their freshman year. And the Haas graduates making business decisions are far more focused on financial metrics than any sentimentality

The way the PAC (no more numbers) becomes the P3 is the PAC-MWC merger.

This is superior to the PAC-ACC leftover merger.

This can be better than being a second class citizen in a Midwest or Southern league.

Control the field. One conference out west. Make everyone pay to watch football past 8pm PST. By eliminating the MWC, there is no option for FS1 or CBS Sports (or ESPN) but to pay the PAC for the night games. Apple and PAC will need teams to play on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. 9 game conference schedule. 3-4 games OOC (Hawaii Exemption earns a 13th game).

Just dominate geographically.

Apple deal: PAC separate package. Based on viewer metrics 2/3 to the school(s) being watched (part subscription, part advertising). The metrics flip for the incoming MWC schools 1/3 to the school, 2/3 to the conference. Until the 7-10 year initial term is done. Then, it's more uniform for all schools. Big GOR so everyone stays. The B1G, B12, ACC and even SEC still would want to play games in the West (they recruit here); by being solid, you force their fans to buy the Apple PAC package, at least for OOC, but many might stay for night games and games during workweek days. PAC with Apple goes international CAL-Hawaii matchups in Asia/Aus/NZ.

The metrics are for illustrative purposes.

Also, I don't want to see any more college football schools die. Let's regionalize. WEST COAST!

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

Apple low balled the Pac-12 so they could wait out bidding on an expanding Big Ten or Big 12. Way more inventory now there that all the broadcast carriers can't cover now.

---

Plus the market values of B1G games are much higher than what was left of the PAC-12.

---

Is this the backdoor in? UW and UO is who B1G wants and needs to convince (not much convincing necessary). Then they just need a couple more teams to lessen travel burden on everyone, all sports, and throw in a good market. Enter Apple, with Cal ties and stake in the Bay Area. Do they just add us on after UW/UO finalize?

---

My guess is Cal and Stanford get offered $10 million less than UW and Oregon, we accept and declare it a victory for Christ, then try to figure out how we are going to stem all the red ink. Best option is probably non-revenue sports to the UC dominated Big West.

---

2.) It will be a slap in the face if Apple, our local company with connections to Cal, doesn't fight for us to be part of their deal

---

You think Cal alumni at Apple cared at all about the football program? The engineers and product managers likely never attended a game apart from the Big Game their freshman year. And the Haas graduates making business decisions are far more focused on financial metrics than any sentimentality

---

Username checks out

Econ141 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

Apple low balled the Pac-12 so they could wait out bidding on an expanding Big Ten or Big 12. Way more inventory now there that all the broadcast carriers can't cover now.

---

Plus the market values of B1G games are much higher than what was left of the PAC-12.

---

Is this the backdoor in? UW and UO is who B1G wants and needs to convince (not much convincing necessary). Then they just need a couple more teams to lessen travel burden on everyone, all sports, and throw in a good market. Enter Apple, with Cal ties and stake in the Bay Area. Do they just add us on after UW/UO finalize?

---

My guess is Cal and Stanford get offered $10 million less than UW and Oregon, we accept and declare it a victory for Christ, then try to figure out how we are going to stem all the red ink. Best option is probably non-revenue sports to the UC dominated Big West.

---

2.) It will be a slap in the face if Apple, our local company with connections to Cal, doesn't fight for us to be part of their deal

---

You think Cal alumni at Apple cared at all about the football program? The engineers and product managers likely never attended a game apart from the Big Game their freshman year. And the Haas graduates making business decisions are far more focused on financial metrics than any sentimentality

---

Username checks out

---

For someone named Econ, you don't seem to have a grasp of basic economics

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

Apple low balled the Pac-12 so they could wait out bidding on an expanding Big Ten or Big 12. Way more inventory now there that all the broadcast carriers can't cover now.

---

Plus the market values of B1G games are much higher than what was left of the PAC-12.

---

Is this the backdoor in? UW and UO is who B1G wants and needs to convince (not much convincing necessary). Then they just need a couple more teams to lessen travel burden on everyone, all sports, and throw in a good market. Enter Apple, with Cal ties and stake in the Bay Area. Do they just add us on after UW/UO finalize?

---

My guess is Cal and Stanford get offered $10 million less than UW and Oregon, we accept and declare it a victory for Christ, then try to figure out how we are going to stem all the red ink. Best option is probably non-revenue sports to the UC dominated Big West.

---

2.) It will be a slap in the face if Apple, our local company with connections to Cal, doesn't fight for us to be part of their deal

---

You think Cal alumni at Apple cared at all about the football program? The engineers and product managers likely never attended a game apart from the Big Game their freshman year. And the Haas graduates making business decisions are far more focused on financial metrics than any sentimentality

---

Username checks out

---

For someone named Econ, you don't seem to have a grasp of basic economics

---

There's the old campus trope of econ majors being Haas flunkies, but then there's this dude.

Strykur said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

LessMilesMoreTedford said:

---

Apple low balled the Pac-12 so they could wait out bidding on an expanding Big Ten or Big 12. Way more inventory now there that all the broadcast carriers can't cover now.

---

Plus the market values of B1G games are much higher than what was left of the PAC-12.

---

Is this the backdoor in? UW and UO is who B1G wants and needs to convince (not much convincing necessary). Then they just need a couple more teams to lessen travel burden on everyone, all sports, and throw in a good market. Enter Apple, with Cal ties and stake in the Bay Area. Do they just add us on after UW/UO finalize?

---

My guess is Cal and Stanford get offered $10 million less than UW and Oregon, we accept and declare it a victory for Christ, then try to figure out how we are going to stem all the red ink. Best option is probably non-revenue sports to the UC dominated Big West.

---

2.) It will be a slap in the face if Apple, our local company with connections to Cal, doesn't fight for us to be part of their deal

---

You think Cal alumni at Apple cared at all about the football program? The engineers and product managers likely never attended a game apart from the Big Game their freshman year. And the Haas graduates making business decisions are far more focused on financial metrics than any sentimentality

---

Username checks out

---

For someone named Econ, you don't seem to have a grasp of basic economics

---

There's the old campus trope of econ majors being Haas flunkies, but then there's this dude.

---

Econ dept #1 baby!

wifeisafurd said:

---

Apple TV wanted to make a big splash in college sports. Their CEO said so, starting with the Pac. Then came an offer with a potentially low minimum per team when compared to other P5 conferences, but what we hear are decent incentives if the Pac brings in additional viewers to Apple, with achieving new tiers for customers provided tied directly to higher levels of payments to the conference. The deal is forward-thinking in that there's an underlying shift in the media market that's happening, and people are moving to streaming and moving away from linear. So far so good - the Pac takes advantages of these trends, provides additional viewers, and it is rewarded for providing that extra vale.

However, it's not solely guaranteed money with "incentivized tiers". ADs need a pretty good idea of their revenues going to into a new budget for the fiscal year. They're negotiations with coaches on salaries, how many teams they can field, who can travel where, etc. all depends on a fairly estimable revenue stream. In the linear TV deals they have a much greater level of certainty. They don't have to go to the coach and say I will give your assistant coaches the requested raises if the entire conference hits a certain number of subscribers? And no, it is not something you can control coach, since even if you win we may or may not achieve better subscription results. In the linear TV world coach, you win and produce more eyeballs, the provider gets more for TV ad revenue and we get more revenue. But right now, Apple TV growth is stagnant, and will the reconstituted Pac-12 actually drive the required new subscribers that I can rely on trickle-down revenue for the entire conference? Sure Cal and Furd have big markets, but they don't drive a lot of eyeball by themselves. Then again, there are a ton of other Pac teams' alums living in the Bay Area, so maybe that market works, and you need those teams. Seattle and Phoenix are nice markets, but they're still outside the top ten, and the number of other Pac alums in their areas is far less. Oregon has a more national following, but a much weaker local market. Utah is the opposite, it draws great from its area, but has a limited size market of Pac fans (though numbers improving as the population grows). Same could be said for Tuscan. And WSU and OSU - let's get real.

Then there is a factor that with streaming is that game times probably can be sent in advance and at good playing times, and serious fans that might otherwise subscribe are actually going to come and watch the game live instead. And in that regard, maybe "after dark" kickoffs are detrimental to the school's brand and long term fan base, but that doesn't help Apple get subscribers in the next few years. Al this goes a long way in saying that as an AD it is really difficult (impossible?) to measure just how many subscribers the Pac will generate, especially as membership changes. Do I want to be in that position or do I go the B1G or B12 and know pretty close to how much money I'm getting?

Colorado knows it will get around $31.7 million when it joins the Big 12 in 2024, and not some much lower number or even bigger number. Colorado AD knows for the next several years he can rely on that money because the linear TV companies are willing to assume the risk of bad ratings, and more of the benefit for higher than expected ratings, where Apple will not. And my sense is that most, if not all, of the Pac ADs are going to see it the same way as the Colorado AD. Maybe a few teams might stick around if they don't have options, but it looks like many teams are looking to leave, in which case the Apple offer and the Pac crater, and Apple is left empty handed for not appreciating the decision making process of P5 college sports teams. Just my two cents.

---

I think streaming is the future of college sports broadcasting, as it is the future of all broadcasting. But the Pac 12 members didn't want to be the guinea pigs to test the new business model, and the offer was presented as the same moment two conferences were ready with money and expansion aspirations. It was the perfect storm.

SoFlaBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Apple TV wanted to make a big splash in college sports. Their CEO said so, starting with the Pac. Then came an offer with a potentially low minimum per team when compared to other P5 conferences, but what we hear are decent incentives if the Pac brings in additional viewers to Apple, with achieving new tiers for customers provided tied directly to higher levels of payments to the conference. The deal is forward-thinking in that there's an underlying shift in the media market that's happening, and people are moving to streaming and moving away from linear. So far so good - the Pac takes advantages of these trends, provides additional viewers, and it is rewarded for providing that extra vale.

However, it's not solely guaranteed money with "incentivized tiers". ADs need a pretty good idea of their revenues going to into a new budget for the fiscal year. They're negotiations with coaches on salaries, how many teams they can field, who can travel where, etc. all depends on a fairly estimable revenue stream. In the linear TV deals they have a much greater level of certainty. They don't have to go to the coach and say I will give your assistant coaches the requested raises if the entire conference hits a certain number of subscribers? And no, it is not something you can control coach, since even if you win we may or may not achieve better subscription results. In the linear TV world coach, you win and produce more eyeballs, the provider gets more for TV ad revenue and we get more revenue. But right now, Apple TV growth is stagnant, and will the reconstituted Pac-12 actually drive the required new subscribers that I can rely on trickle-down revenue for the entire conference? Sure Cal and Furd have big markets, but they don't drive a lot of eyeball by themselves. Then again, there are a ton of other Pac teams' alums living in the Bay Area, so maybe that market works, and you need those teams. Seattle and Phoenix are nice markets, but they're still outside the top ten, and the number of other Pac alums in their areas is far less. Oregon has a more national following, but a much weaker local market. Utah is the opposite, it draws great from its area, but has a limited size market of Pac fans (though numbers improving as the population grows). Same could be said for Tuscan. And WSU and OSU - let's get real.

Then there is a factor that with streaming is that game times probably can be sent in advance and at good playing times, and serious fans that might otherwise subscribe are actually going to come and watch the game live instead. And in that regard, maybe "after dark" kickoffs are detrimental to the school's brand and long term fan base, but that doesn't help Apple get subscribers in the next few years. Al this goes a long way in saying that as an AD it is really difficult (impossible?) to measure just how many subscribers the Pac will generate, especially as membership changes. Do I want to be in that position or do I go the B1G or B12 and know pretty close to how much money I'm getting?

Colorado knows it will get around $31.7 million when it joins the Big 12 in 2024, and not some much lower number or even bigger number. Colorado AD knows for the next several years he can rely on that money because the linear TV companies are willing to assume the risk of bad ratings, and more of the benefit for higher than expected ratings, where Apple will not. And my sense is that most, if not all, of the Pac ADs are going to see it the same way as the Colorado AD. Maybe a few teams might stick around if they don't have options, but it looks like many teams are looking to leave, in which case the Apple offer and the Pac crater, and Apple is left empty handed for not appreciating the decision making process of P5 college sports teams. Just my two cents.

---

I think streaming is the future of college sports broadcasting, as it is the future of all broadcasting. But the Pac 12 members didn't want to be the guinea pigs to test the new business model, and the offer was presented as the same moment two conferences were ready with money and expansion aspirations. It was the perfect storm.

---

Certainly not after we were already the guinea pigs for Larry Scott's grand experiment

golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

maxer said:

---

BearSD said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Apple TV wanted to make a big splash in college sports. Their CEO said so, starting with the Pac. Then came an offer with a potentially low minimum per team when compared to other P5 conferences

---

Apple is not the problem here.

Apple reportedly offered between $200 and 250 million per year. The value they would have received is about 80 football games and 150 men's basketball games. They'd get everything else too, presumably, but the total value of everything else is not significant compared to the football and men's hoops games. And, they'd get the right to sublicense some games, which they also have with their MLS contract.

Speaking of which... Apple's deal with MLS pays MLS an average of $250 million/year, base, and is similar to their Pac offer in that MLS would get revenue-sharing when certain subscription levels for Apple's MLS TV service are reached. As for inventory, each team gets about 22 home games (including cup matches as well as regular season home games). This year there are 29 teams, next year it goes up to 30. At 30 teams, that's 660 games in Apple's MLS inventory, plus the playoff tournament of at least 25 games.

Apple's MLS inventory is well over 3 times the Pac football and men's basketball inventory, yet Apple was willing to pay approximately the same amount to the Pac as they pay to MLS.

Why should Apple have offered the Pac more? Just because other conferences are paid more by ESPN and Fox?

If Kliavkoff thought he would get more from Apple, he's a doofus. Only a separate package with a "linear" carrier could have paid more, and even if Georgie didn't piss those guys off by being arrogant about a streaming deal, the traditional carriers would have been loath to make it easier for Apple to get a foot in the door given that ESPN, NBC, CBS, and TBS/TNT all have their own streaming services that carry some sports and probably think of Apple as a threatening, deep-pocketed competitor.

Just one blunder after another by Kliavkoff.

---

Kliavkoff mistimed the market. Wall Street got sick of the lack of streaming profits, interest rates went up, and cord cutting accelerated while he was leisurely shopping for a deal.

The Big 12 did the opposite -- they locked up their deal early.

So here we are.

---

Following ESPN's exclusive negotiating period in which they low-balled their offer, Fox refused to deal with the PAC, forcing Kliavkoff to look elsewhere.

Meanwhile, ESPN and Fox gave the Big 12 a deal that includes an incentive to add "P5" teams (and only P5 teams) at the same payout per team when everyone knew the only P5 teams that had not signed away their GORs were the PAC-12, then refused to give the PAC-12 an equal deal, resulting in the team that finished last jumping to the B-12 for more money and now more teams are likely to go.

---

What really kills me is that the last time conference realignment was swirling about a decade ago, it was ESPN that stepped in with an overly generous TV contract to keep the Big XII from disintegrating, and thus temporarily stopping the march to super conferences.

---

It has occurred to me recently, that the Pac-12 was one of the conferences resisting the expanded playoff. Perhaps the networks decided to kill the conference for that reason. The networks knew of the money they could make and killed one of the opposition voices by cutting them up and feeding them to the different conferences.

Well, for a moment (1 hour) I had hope for a West Coast P3 conference with Apple.

golden sloth said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

maxer said:

---

BearSD said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Apple TV wanted to make a big splash in college sports. Their CEO said so, starting with the Pac. Then came an offer with a potentially low minimum per team when compared to other P5 conferences

---

Apple is not the problem here.

Apple reportedly offered between $200 and 250 million per year. The value they would have received is about 80 football games and 150 men's basketball games. They'd get everything else too, presumably, but the total value of everything else is not significant compared to the football and men's hoops games. And, they'd get the right to sublicense some games, which they also have with their MLS contract.

Speaking of which... Apple's deal with MLS pays MLS an average of $250 million/year, base, and is similar to their Pac offer in that MLS would get revenue-sharing when certain subscription levels for Apple's MLS TV service are reached. As for inventory, each team gets about 22 home games (including cup matches as well as regular season home games). This year there are 29 teams, next year it goes up to 30. At 30 teams, that's 660 games in Apple's MLS inventory, plus the playoff tournament of at least 25 games.

Apple's MLS inventory is well over 3 times the Pac football and men's basketball inventory, yet Apple was willing to pay approximately the same amount to the Pac as they pay to MLS.

Why should Apple have offered the Pac more? Just because other conferences are paid more by ESPN and Fox?

If Kliavkoff thought he would get more from Apple, he's a doofus. Only a separate package with a "linear" carrier could have paid more, and even if Georgie didn't piss those guys off by being arrogant about a streaming deal, the traditional carriers would have been loath to make it easier for Apple to get a foot in the door given that ESPN, NBC, CBS, and TBS/TNT all have their own streaming services that carry some sports and probably think of Apple as a threatening, deep-pocketed competitor.

Just one blunder after another by Kliavkoff.

---

Kliavkoff mistimed the market. Wall Street got sick of the lack of streaming profits, interest rates went up, and cord cutting accelerated while he was leisurely shopping for a deal.

The Big 12 did the opposite -- they locked up their deal early.

So here we are.

---

Following ESPN's exclusive negotiating period in which they low-balled their offer, Fox refused to deal with the PAC, forcing Kliavkoff to look elsewhere.

Meanwhile, ESPN and Fox gave the Big 12 a deal that includes an incentive to add "P5" teams (and only P5 teams) at the same payout per team when everyone knew the only P5 teams that had not signed away their GORs were the PAC-12, then refused to give the PAC-12 an equal deal, resulting in the team that finished last jumping to the B-12 for more money and now more teams are likely to go.

---

What really kills me is that the last time conference realignment was swirling about a decade ago, it was ESPN that stepped in with an overly generous TV contract to keep the Big XII from disintegrating, and thus temporarily stopping the march to super conferences.

---

It has occurred to me recently, that the Pac-12 was one of the conferences resisting the expanded playoff. Perhaps the networks decided to kill the conference for that reason. The networks knew of the money they could make and killed one of the opposition voices by cutting them up and feeding them to the different conferences.

---

I still don't understand why the Pac voted against that.