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.

After Colorado left Apple knew there was no point to putting forth a decent offer.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Apple TV wanted to make a big splash in college sports. Their CEO said so. Then came an offer with a potentially low minimum per team when compared to other 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 provides additional viewers, it is rewarded for providing that extra vale.

However, it's not solely guaranteed money with "incentivized tiers". AD's 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 well known 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 concerned 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 these results. In linear TV, you produce more eyeballs, the provider gets more for TV ads 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 improving). 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. But its 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 the benefit to getter than expected ratings, where Apple is not. And my sense is that most, if not all, of the Pac ADs are going to see it the same t 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.

---

Apple is not negotiating in a vacuum, it is Kliavkoff's job to explain to Apple that he needs a big upfront payout number to present to the presidents and the presidents' job to explain that to Kliavkoff.

That said, the deal could have been presented as (for example) "$40 million per school, assuming certain incentive targets are met." That at least keeps everyone reading the fine print and not immediately heading fit the exit.

I think not having ESPN, Fox, NBC, CBS or ABC as part of the deal was going to be a deal breaker.

Hopefully Christ gets us into the B1G.

Strykur said:

---

After Colorado left Apple knew there was no point to putting forth a decent offer.

---

The offer was a lifeline. Nothing more. There are shareholders to consider.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Apple TV wanted to make a big splash in college sports. Their CEO said so. Then came an offer with a potentially low minimum per team when compared to other 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 provides additional viewers, it is rewarded for providing that extra vale.

However, it's not solely guaranteed money with "incentivized tiers". AD's 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 well known 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 concerned 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 these results. In linear TV, you produce more eyeballs, the provider gets more for TV ads 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 improving). 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. But its 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 the benefit to getter than expected ratings, where Apple is not. And my sense is that most, if not all, of the Pac ADs are going to see it the same t 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.

---

Your larger point is directionally correct. There are a couple of assumptions baked in here that aren't.

- AppleTV growth is not stagnant
https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-stock-price-tv-plus-earnings-34b3f10b

-I don't believe (although I haven't seen the deal, so I don't know for sure) the subscriber escalators are tied to general AppleTV+ subscriptions. I'm fairly sure they'd offer the PAC as an add-on subscription (they way you can subscribe to the MLS now on Apple TV) and that the bonuses would be tied to THAT subscription.

You are correct in that athletic departments are set up to be based on known revenue for a set period -- this deal is a totally new model. I think long term it's probably smart, and where things are going (ESPN I'm guessing will launch a streaming-only product in the next 12-18 months (and it will be expensive) but to be the first is scary and hard.

(yes, I know you are a lawyer. I worked at Netflix, Apple, and Amazon in their streaming businesses)

maxer said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Apple TV wanted to make a big splash in college sports. Their CEO said so. Then came an offer with a potentially low minimum per team when compared to other 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 provides additional viewers, it is rewarded for providing that extra vale.

However, it's not solely guaranteed money with "incentivized tiers". AD's 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 well known 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 concerned 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 these results. In linear TV, you produce more eyeballs, the provider gets more for TV ads 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 improving). 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. But its 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 the benefit to getter than expected ratings, where Apple is not. And my sense is that most, if not all, of the Pac ADs are going to see it the same t 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.

---

Your larger point is directionally correct. There are a couple of assumptions baked in here that aren't.

- AppleTV growth is not stagnant
https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-stock-price-tv-plus-earnings-34b3f10b

-I don't believe (although I haven't seen the deal, so I don't know for sure) the subscriber escalators are tied to general AppleTV+ subscriptions. I'm fairly sure they'd offer the PAC as an add-on subscription (they way you can subscribe to the MLS now on Apple TV) and that the bonuses would be tied to THAT subscription.

You are correct in that athletic departments are set up to be based on known revenue for a set period -- this deal is a totally new model. I think long term it's probably smart, and where things are going (ESPN I'm guessing will launch a streaming-only product in the next 12-18 months (and it will be expensive) but to be the first is scary and hard.

(yes, I know you are a lawyer. I worked at Netflix, Apple, and Amazon in their streaming businesses)

---

I think it's pretty obvious that what's been leaked is the worst case/negative spin.

What's at question is whether Apple is serious about acquiring college sports. If yes, then they will have to find a way to bridge the two worlds to reduce the risk for the remaining PacX schools (UW, Oregon and UU in particular) of being the early movers to the streaming first plan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

You imply that making a streaming deal caps the amount you can get. Therefore, did MLS significantly blunder in making a deal with Apple?

oski003 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.

---

You imply that making a streaming deal caps the amount you can get. Therefore, did MLS significantly blunder in making a deal with Apple?

---

MLS is experimenting, in a sense, with a way to get their hardcore fans access to every game. Their league has collected well over $1 billion in expansion fees in the last few years. They have the ability to do this.

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.

---

All that's true. But that suggests to me that the networks didn't really want PAC product, which is weird, but what can you do.

The real sad thing is that they're making short term decisions that are very bad for college football long term, and sadly there's no adult in charge who can sort of bring everybody back to reality. The NCAA functionally doesn't exist anymore.

Bad for "college football". Good for the business of College Football.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Bad for "college football". Good for the business of College Football.

---

Not for long. The cable bundle was one of the most stable and lucrative business models in history, and it's dying. Sports rights are gonna fall off a cliff in 5-10 years.

maxer 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.

---

All that's true. But that suggests to me that the networks didn't really want PAC product, which is weird, but what can you do.

The real sad thing is that they're making short term decisions that are very bad for college football long term, and sadly there's no adult in charge who can sort of bring everybody back to reality. The NCAA functionally doesn't exist anymore.

---

Yup, once you destroy all the quirky regional alliances and rivalries in favor of national super-conferences then college football just becomes the NFL with worse talent. So why not just watch the real deal on Sunday instead?

sycasey said:

---

maxer 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.

---

All that's true. But that suggests to me that the networks didn't really want PAC product, which is weird, but what can you do.

The real sad thing is that they're making short term decisions that are very bad for college football long term, and sadly there's no adult in charge who can sort of bring everybody back to reality. The NCAA functionally doesn't exist anymore.

---

Yup, once you destroy all the quirky regional alliances and rivalries in favor of national super-conferences then college football just becomes the NFL with worse talent. So why not just watch the real deal on Sunday instead?

---

Real talk, the chaotic nature of the college game is so much more entertaining than pro ball.

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.

Strykur said:

---

sycasey said:

---

maxer 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.

---

All that's true. But that suggests to me that the networks didn't really want PAC product, which is weird, but what can you do.

The real sad thing is that they're making short term decisions that are very bad for college football long term, and sadly there's no adult in charge who can sort of bring everybody back to reality. The NCAA functionally doesn't exist anymore.

---

Yup, once you destroy all the quirky regional alliances and rivalries in favor of national super-conferences then college football just becomes the NFL with worse talent. So why not just watch the real deal on Sunday instead?

---

Real talk, the chaotic nature of the college game is so much more entertaining than pro ball.

---

I would hesitate to label a Wilcox coached as chaotic. Inept, possibly, but chaotic, hardly.

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.

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.

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?

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?

---

B1G would need another media partner for 20 to make sense, Amazon, Apple, whoever.

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?

---

If the B1G invites UO/UW without Cal/Stanford that woukd suggest there isn't a media deal to be made for the two.

Strykur 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?

---

B1G would need another media partner for 20 to make sense, Amazon, Apple, whoever.

---

Getting the B1G on Apple TV is an easy slam dunk to make a splash.

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.

---

Did apple offer that to MLS before or after they knew about messi?

Cause there is no way in hell the pac12 is worth anywhere near what the MLS is worth now with messi

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

Strykur 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?

---

B1G would need another media partner for 20 to make sense, Amazon, Apple, whoever.

---

Getting the B1G on Apple TV is an easy slam dunk to make a splash.

---

Yeah, so the Oregon and Washington invites go out first, and once the PAC-12 Apple TV offer expires, they can then talk to the B1G.

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.

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.

---

Over time we would eventually get money as full members, we just fill the shortfall for several years. California Memorial Stadium attendance will increase when we play B1G teams anyway.

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.

---

If we don't get in:

1.) I don't understand why there would have been the rumor that we are being considered along with Stanford/UW/UO earlier this week.
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
3.) F UC Berkeley for screwing this up -- the restaurants and clothing stores around town will lose money, we will lose marketing from not being in a relevant conference (although I'll be happy to not watch "what do you see? you see Berkeley"), and the history of some of the best and most interesting collegiate athletes from Joe F'ing Kapp to Joe F'ing Roth to John F'ing Tuggle to Marshawn F'ing Lynch will be lost.
4.) We need drive Jim K out of town.

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.

---

If we don't get in:

1.) I don't understand why there would have been the rumor that we are being considered along with Stanford/UW/UO earlier this week.
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
3.) F UC Berkeley for screwing this up -- the restaurants and clothing stores around town will lose money, we will lose marketing from not being in a relevant conference (although I'll be happy to not watch "what do you see? you see Berkeley"), and the history of some of the best and most interesting collegiate athletes from Joe F'ing Kapp to Joe F'ing Roth to John F'ing Tuggle to Marshawn F'ing Lynch will be lost.
4.) We need drive Jim K out of town.

---

1) Oregon and Washington have been pushing hard to get in, might have obtained actionable offers from the B-12 as leverage and Fox wants them. None of that appears to be true for Cal and Stanford but we might get a pity invite off the scrap heap because the B1G presidents like us.
2. Apple is probably an ally, but Fox probably is not. In any case, Apple cannot be an ally for getting into the B1G until after the proposed PAC-10 deal expires.
3. Agreed
4. Should have happened a long time ago.

calumnus 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.

---

If we don't get in:

1.) I don't understand why there would have been the rumor that we are being considered along with Stanford/UW/UO earlier this week.
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
3.) F UC Berkeley for screwing this up -- the restaurants and clothing stores around town will lose money, we will lose marketing from not being in a relevant conference (although I'll be happy to not watch "what do you see? you see Berkeley"), and the history of some of the best and most interesting collegiate athletes from Joe F'ing Kapp to Joe F'ing Roth to John F'ing Tuggle to Marshawn F'ing Lynch will be lost.
4.) We need drive Jim K out of town.

---

1) Oregon and Washington have been pushing hard to get in, might have obtained actionable offers from the B-12 as leverage and Fox wants them. None of that appears to be true for Cal and Stanford but we might get a pity invite off the scrap heap because the B1G presidents like us.
2. Apple is probably an ally, but Fox probably is not. In any case, Apple cannot be an ally for getting into the B1G until after the proposed PAC-10 deal expires.
3. Agreed
4. Should have happened a long time ago.

---

1. Kevin Warren was pushing Oregon and Washington last summer and got pushback from the B1G presidents, now that the PAC-12 is collapsing, this is being re-visited, and the presidents want us and the trees, so arrangements will be made.
2. Fox is not interested in us and the trees, and Apple can swoop in after tomorrow.
3. The next chancellor (and AD) can clean this up, not only is San Diego State stuck in the Mountain West, pretty soon we will take their president.
4. See 3.

ducky23 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.

---

Did apple offer that to MLS before or after they knew about messi?

Cause there is no way in hell the pac12 is worth anywhere near what the MLS is worth now with messi

---

The Apple-MLS deal was made several months before Messi signed with Miami.

To help MLS land Messi, Apple gave Messi a personal cut of MLS subscription revenue, on top of what MLS gets.

Strykur said:

---

calumnus 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.

---

If we don't get in:

1.) I don't understand why there would have been the rumor that we are being considered along with Stanford/UW/UO earlier this week.
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
3.) F UC Berkeley for screwing this up -- the restaurants and clothing stores around town will lose money, we will lose marketing from not being in a relevant conference (although I'll be happy to not watch "what do you see? you see Berkeley"), and the history of some of the best and most interesting collegiate athletes from Joe F'ing Kapp to Joe F'ing Roth to John F'ing Tuggle to Marshawn F'ing Lynch will be lost.
4.) We need drive Jim K out of town.

---

1) Oregon and Washington have been pushing hard to get in, might have obtained actionable offers from the B-12 as leverage and Fox wants them. None of that appears to be true for Cal and Stanford but we might get a pity invite off the scrap heap because the B1G presidents like us.
2. Apple is probably an ally, but Fox probably is not. In any case, Apple cannot be an ally for getting into the B1G until after the proposed PAC-10 deal expires.
3. Agreed
4. Should have happened a long time ago.

---

1. Kevin Warren was pushing Oregon and Washington last summer and got pushback from the B1G presidents, now that the PAC-12 is collapsing, this is being re-visited, and the presidents want us and the trees, so arrangements will be made.
2. Fox is not interested in us and the trees, and Apple can swoop in after tomorrow.
3. The next chancellor (and AD) can clean this up, not only is San Diego State stuck in the Mountain West, pretty soon we will take their president.
4. See 3.

---

Yes, this makes sense and gives me hope.

BearSD said:

---

ducky23 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.

---

Did apple offer that to MLS before or after they knew about messi?

Cause there is no way in hell the pac12 is worth anywhere near what the MLS is worth now with messi

---

The Apple-MLS deal was made several months before Messi signed with Miami.

To help MLS land Messi, Apple gave Messi a personal cut of MLS subscription revenue, on top of what MLS gets.

---

Hmmm…I assumed apple doesn't know sht about sports, but that was pretty smart. Maybe they do know what they're doing.

maxer said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Apple TV wanted to make a big splash in college sports. Their CEO said so. Then came an offer with a potentially low minimum per team when compared to other 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 provides additional viewers, it is rewarded for providing that extra vale.

However, it's not solely guaranteed money with "incentivized tiers". AD's 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 well known 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 concerned 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 these results. In linear TV, you produce more eyeballs, the provider gets more for TV ads 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 improving). 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. But its 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 the benefit to getter than expected ratings, where Apple is not. And my sense is that most, if not all, of the Pac ADs are going to see it the same t 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.

---

Your larger point is directionally correct. There are a couple of assumptions baked in here that aren't.

- AppleTV growth is not stagnant
https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-stock-price-tv-plus-earnings-34b3f10b

-I don't believe (although I haven't seen the deal, so I don't know for sure) the subscriber escalators are tied to general AppleTV+ subscriptions. I'm fairly sure they'd offer the PAC as an add-on subscription (they way you can subscribe to the MLS now on Apple TV) and that the bonuses would be tied to THAT subscription.

You are correct in that athletic departments are set up to be based on known revenue for a set period -- this deal is a totally new model. I think long term it's probably smart, and where things are going (ESPN I'm guessing will launch a streaming-only product in the next 12-18 months (and it will be expensive) but to be the first is scary and hard.

(yes, I know you are a lawyer. I worked at Netflix, Apple, and Amazon in their streaming businesses)

---

My wording may be not have been as detailed for a variety of reasons. I agree that it is likely to be an add on subscription which won't be that cheap. But I don't know for sure that is the case, so I was vague. April subscription growth has leveled off the last 6 months. Everything else I agree with, and would like to hear more of your thoughts given your background I ten to think Apple did't understand their content providers or make a great case why what they were providing was a such a good deal. Seems like the deal was thrown together and they didn't appreciate the school has other option. Hard to believe, since my experience (which admittedly is real estate based) is Apple knows what it is doing.

Edit: looking in from the outside, the Commissioner very much oversold this Pac's media deal opportunities and I'm being diplomatic