I actually like the idea of Apple streaming (cause we all finally would have access, across the country), but the killer is that it's an add on service. That really hurts exposure for people that are not ( and will never be) paying the upcharge.
Yeah, I like it as well but the add on service might be a killer as casual fans won’t pay that. How much would the add on service be? MLS on AppleTV is currently $40. Assuming PacX footbal is also $40, which isn’t too bad considering the season is roughly 3.5 months long. What happens to basketball? Is it $40 for football and $20 for basketball? Or something like $50 for the whole year and you get all Pac12 sports, revenue and non revenue?
Such a complicated issue...and coming at the as time as televised sports is beginning a death spiral. The networks overpaid for rights at the same time as cord cutting began. ESPN Cable packages are down 30% and heading fast to 50%. This is unsustainable , so don't look to them as saviors. All this is to say a streaming play with Apple may indeed be the best worst option. Here is a free link to a NYT piece today on ESPN. The key metric to pay attention to is that it is estimated that they would need to charge $50 a month for a streaming only service to maintain the cash flow...like I said, death spiral.
Apple TV deal is exactly the move the PAC -12 needs. We are already way behind the SEC & BIG10. We need an out of the box solution because the gap is only going to keep growing. It’s a risk, but I would rather they die trying to make a move than the slow death of other conferences putting distance between us and stealing our teams that have value. Also, Apple is trendy and they like making money. I would assume they are going to market the PAC-12 like never before. And if they end up buying up some of ESPN later, maybe that puts us in really good position.
Agreed. If they had ESPN on the other line waiting to offer them a different deal, then there would be more of a decision here. Instead, Pac-12 has been pushed here and there's a ton of upside.
Another piece is rumors are it’s 200/yr for 10 teams + incentives and 220/yr if they add 2 more teams. I think you could give the original 9 a larger share and then force the newcomers to take 50% on a shortened deal. I think this is why they have been so adamant on waiting to expand. Easier to tell a team coming in this is your cut, take it or leave it.
Tech on the West Coast always leads the way! Btw, with $31m guaranteed and the $10m annual contribution from UCLA, CAL did pretty well on this deal. I want UCLA to eventually admit that it was a dumb move they made to end up in the BIG10. Bwhahahahaha!
It isn’t $31 million guaranteed. I don’t know where you read that. If it were $31 million guaranteed then I think everyone sticks together and signs it.
Yeah, it's apparently closer to $20-$21 mil guaranteed. It's the BIG 12 schools that are guaranteed $31 mil. You see the chasm now, don't you rugbear? Even if every program signs on now, the conference is doomed if it doesn't hit those incentives.
We're set only so long as the rest of the conference is stabilized. I'm not convinced this agreement does that. I'm glad it's a short contract, because there is so much fluidity re: media/audience trends and there is the hope that we could improve the conference value in the course, which is at its lowest point currently. But it also keeps the conference in limbo, as it creates a not-too-distant exit path for UO and UW, etc in three years, which is when the B1G has signaled it will be considering further expansion.
Agree, but where will a FOX media deal be in three years with all these companies getting hammered? There exists a distinct possibility that their numbers may go down at contract renewal time.
What is not in question about the Big 12 deal is that those programs will continue to be visible and accessible in a way that we are far less assured of.
Sure, anything is possible, including the possibility that folks don't sign up for an extra-on-top-of-extra product that is suddenly quite light on brand names.
My kids introduce me to streaming years ago. At first I was like a fish out of water (cable til I die), then got use to it. Streaming is were all TV platforms will be eventually be on....its the best way to gather consumer information! Pac 12, 10, 8 should embrace it and get ahead of the herd. Great Deal if its done right!
I move around so much for work, streaming is the only way to go. I used to have Hulu and FUBO during the season so I got all the sports channels (FUBO has PAC12 Network, Hulu does not). I am wondering if Apple will carry all PAC12 games. I have AppleTV, but if I must I will reinstate FUBO for the college football season.
I relate to the fish out of water that learns to breath plain air. Right, now, as I type this, my wife and I are enjoying binge-watching Dallas. IMHO, it's better than having all this on DVD.
So true. We also have no idea if more content means more money. Versions of hard knocks type show marketed by Apple. Do they pay to take on the pac 12 network as a production arm and get it off our books.
It is but have you seen them marketing MLS at all? I haven’t. I have appletv and watch a lot of their shows (Severance, After Party, Silo, Foundation; I recommend them all) but it barely registered until this week that I could watch MLS games and that I had to pay extra for them.
Every time I've opened the app in the past two weeks it's been NOTHING BUT Messi and MLS on the front page. But thats IN the app. I'm not an MLS fan, but I sure know that MLS is on the Apple TV because of this. Not sure what Apple is doing to get that message OUTSIDE of the app though.
Yeah, once Messi signed it seemed like they were really promoting it in the AppleTV app but outside the app, I haven’t seen any promotion of it on billboards or TV commercials.
I guess one of the key issues is how many linear folks will tune in given the technical barriers and the need for subscriptions. From the other thread yesterday it sounds like there is an a la carte option though which may reduce out of pocket expense. Also what is the realistic chance that the numbers of subscribers will trigger the greater payouts?
Goldenone: The chance of reaching the numbers/incentives is ZERO!!!!! Let's get real for a minute. I love my alma mater but we are a regional, not a national brand (except in academics). The only people who are going to pay for the additional Apple TV subscription are alums from all of the schools that have been left out in the cold by the FUCLA and U$C defections. There is NO WAY that the remaining nine schools are going to generate enough interest to make this deal pay. A Big Ten, west coast "pod" of UW, OU, Cal, the 'Furd, FUCLA and U$C is the only way that athletics in most of these schools are going to survive.
When and if we make it to post season play, other conferences won't have tape on our games unless they subscribed to Apple AND paid extra for the Pac subscription. So, we have that going for us which is nice.
I will be personally disappointed if Cal football is relegated to a streaming service for which users must pay an additional fee. I understand the national access advantages, but it seems as if slowly but surely our visibility is wanning.
This was the deal that we needed when the Pac-12 Network was founded. If we still had USC, UCLA we'd get enough subscribers to make it work. But I just don't see the remaining fanbases being big enough to get close to $31M through incentives if we're starting around $20. The sub will either be really expensive or schools will need a really big share of the subscriber dollars.
The existing P12 Network infrastructure is pretty good so at least we understand that aspect.
So the key word here is “primarily.” That tells me there’s linear still in play. The question is what would FOX and ESPN rather do?
126.8 million per year (31.7m per school) is the magic number that Fox and ESPN are willing to spend for up to 4 Pac-12 teams to defect to the Big 12 (possibly 22 million less for Fox). ESPN needs the late night inventory. Fox does not unless some Mountain West teams are poached. And Colorado has now taken 31.7m of that pot so it’s closer to 70-95.1 million.
If the Pac wants a successful media deal, they need to either convince ESPN that their Tier 1 content is worth taking, and then poach some Mountain West teams to force Fox to pay for rights to Pac games on Fox or FS1. Or strike a deal with another linear carrier like TBS for better TV windows.
It’s not wall to wall coverage but it’s about the same linear they get right now and they still get (allegedly) $200m money from Apple, so that should get them within striking distance of the B12 with a lot of upside as everything moves to streaming. Plus you’re on Apple’s back and they will figure it out.
What’s killing this is not expanding first. They should have invited 6-7 schools — SMU, Tulane, and Rice or Memphis for 2024, then SDSU, Boise, Fresno and possibly Colorado State for 2025.
You take linear inventory from the American and Mountain West and force ESPN and Fox to add that to the pot while increasing exposure in two time zones and subscription upside. Force new members to take a diluted share which is more than they had in their current conferences while making legacy schools while.
I‘ll actually give GK the benefit of the doubt here as I’m sure he has some candidates in mind. But this insistence on deal first then expansion is killing the PAC’s chances to get something good.
I actually like the idea of Apple streaming (cause we all finally would have access, across the country), but the killer is that it's an add on service. That really hurts exposure for people that are not ( and will never be) paying the upcharge.
Yeah, I like it as well but the add on service might be a killer as casual fans won’t pay that. How much would the add on service be? MLS on AppleTV is currently $40. Assuming PacX footbal is also $40, which isn’t too bad considering the season is roughly 3.5 months long. What happens to basketball? Is it $40 for football and $20 for basketball? Or something like $50 for the whole year and you get all Pac12 sports, revenue and non revenue?
Such a complicated issue...and coming at the as time as televised sports is beginning a death spiral. The networks overpaid for rights at the same time as cord cutting began. ESPN Cable packages are down 30% and heading fast to 50%. This is unsustainable , so don't look to them as saviors. All this is to say a streaming play with Apple may indeed be the best worst option. Here is a free link to a NYT piece today on ESPN. The key metric to pay attention to is that it is estimated that they would need to charge $50 a month for a streaming only service to maintain the cash flow...like I said, death spiral.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/business/media/espn-disney.html?unlocked_article_code=Ey0dPiD6OCGge3dOprMUw5jFEw_2ni9jexyhOfr58iOH6bkDokRgzv47IQoJvgEWyOu_X9So_zDs4b7pEC2nMP8nm5aA92MnEETgWdPb0_aVYy4YI42Xu8LZGf4x6ivY-S_kXf7ij8ntk1u9oXYJ0xZERGZs_U_4dXwB6lsFUWz6dW7Z-Mox1EwNoGZD_8UJL5L0BK1FiL0CQImnG5pE7eF221x3NWrddnN8i8Zwe8Rmy_MIQaeViPJLuCWd4Hzj2tmGF5atcTUNO-mX4l0ZiEnRkfYlnYPwSvYY3zWcV6Rs0DRDhkhsPdwaiNq6bUh0HbazOxPLRms28Tsb&smid=url-share
I wonder if they go BK how that affects their current media deals?
Sounds like mo money, mo problems at ESPN.
Apple TV deal is exactly the move the PAC -12 needs. We are already way behind the SEC & BIG10. We need an out of the box solution because the gap is only going to keep growing. It’s a risk, but I would rather they die trying to make a move than the slow death of other conferences putting distance between us and stealing our teams that have value. Also, Apple is trendy and they like making money. I would assume they are going to market the PAC-12 like never before. And if they end up buying up some of ESPN later, maybe that puts us in really good position.
Agreed. If they had ESPN on the other line waiting to offer them a different deal, then there would be more of a decision here. Instead, Pac-12 has been pushed here and there's a ton of upside.
Another piece is rumors are it’s 200/yr for 10 teams + incentives and 220/yr if they add 2 more teams. I think you could give the original 9 a larger share and then force the newcomers to take 50% on a shortened deal. I think this is why they have been so adamant on waiting to expand. Easier to tell a team coming in this is your cut, take it or leave it.
Tech on the West Coast always leads the way! Btw, with $31m guaranteed and the $10m annual contribution from UCLA, CAL did pretty well on this deal. I want UCLA to eventually admit that it was a dumb move they made to end up in the BIG10. Bwhahahahaha!
It isn’t $31 million guaranteed. I don’t know where you read that. If it were $31 million guaranteed then I think everyone sticks together and signs it.
Yeah, it's apparently closer to $20-$21 mil guaranteed. It's the BIG 12 schools that are guaranteed $31 mil. You see the chasm now, don't you rugbear? Even if every program signs on now, the conference is doomed if it doesn't hit those incentives.
And the difference between the PacX and the SEC/Big10 deals are even more drastic.
Yeah, it's only really comparable to the ACC, which signed one about a hundred years ago.
It is the only thing holding that conference together.
We're set only so long as the rest of the conference is stabilized. I'm not convinced this agreement does that. I'm glad it's a short contract, because there is so much fluidity re: media/audience trends and there is the hope that we could improve the conference value in the course, which is at its lowest point currently. But it also keeps the conference in limbo, as it creates a not-too-distant exit path for UO and UW, etc in three years, which is when the B1G has signaled it will be considering further expansion.
Agree, but where will a FOX media deal be in three years with all these companies getting hammered? There exists a distinct possibility that their numbers may go down at contract renewal time.
What is not in question about the Big 12 deal is that those programs will continue to be visible and accessible in a way that we are far less assured of.
Sure, anything is possible, including the possibility that folks don't sign up for an extra-on-top-of-extra product that is suddenly quite light on brand names.
That might happen but in the present day, they (Big12/Big10,SEC) will be making a ton of more money than us during the lifetime of this current deal.
My kids introduce me to streaming years ago. At first I was like a fish out of water (cable til I die), then got use to it. Streaming is were all TV platforms will be eventually be on....its the best way to gather consumer information! Pac 12, 10, 8 should embrace it and get ahead of the herd. Great Deal if its done right!
I move around so much for work, streaming is the only way to go. I used to have Hulu and FUBO during the season so I got all the sports channels (FUBO has PAC12 Network, Hulu does not). I am wondering if Apple will carry all PAC12 games. I have AppleTV, but if I must I will reinstate FUBO for the college football season.
I relate to the fish out of water that learns to breath plain air. Right, now, as I type this, my wife and I are enjoying binge-watching Dallas. IMHO, it's better than having all this on DVD.
Knowlton? Knowlton? Bueller? Bueller?
Apple marketing is legendary.
So true. We also have no idea if more content means more money. Versions of hard knocks type show marketed by Apple. Do they pay to take on the pac 12 network as a production arm and get it off our books.
It is but have you seen them marketing MLS at all? I haven’t. I have appletv and watch a lot of their shows (Severance, After Party, Silo, Foundation; I recommend them all) but it barely registered until this week that I could watch MLS games and that I had to pay extra for them.
Every time I've opened the app in the past two weeks it's been NOTHING BUT Messi and MLS on the front page. But thats IN the app. I'm not an MLS fan, but I sure know that MLS is on the Apple TV because of this. Not sure what Apple is doing to get that message OUTSIDE of the app though.
Yeah, once Messi signed it seemed like they were really promoting it in the AppleTV app but outside the app, I haven’t seen any promotion of it on billboards or TV commercials.
I guess one of the key issues is how many linear folks will tune in given the technical barriers and the need for subscriptions. From the other thread yesterday it sounds like there is an a la carte option though which may reduce out of pocket expense. Also what is the realistic chance that the numbers of subscribers will trigger the greater payouts?
Goldenone: The chance of reaching the numbers/incentives is ZERO!!!!! Let's get real for a minute. I love my alma mater but we are a regional, not a national brand (except in academics). The only people who are going to pay for the additional Apple TV subscription are alums from all of the schools that have been left out in the cold by the FUCLA and U$C defections. There is NO WAY that the remaining nine schools are going to generate enough interest to make this deal pay. A Big Ten, west coast "pod" of UW, OU, Cal, the 'Furd, FUCLA and U$C is the only way that athletics in most of these schools are going to survive.
For whom does the bell toll? --- Won't be long now! Very sad! --- Wait! ---Unless! Unless! Unless! ---
Please! Please! Please Big 10, make Cal a transplant!
I'd rather we die with honor than go begging.
“AppleTV+ deal that would land the bulk of Pac-12 football games on their streaming service”
Just football games, or basketball and other sports too?
After basketball, it’s all long tail, but accuracy about what’s on offer is appreciated.
When and if we make it to post season play, other conferences won't have tape on our games unless they subscribed to Apple AND paid extra for the Pac subscription. So, we have that going for us which is nice.
(yes, I know game tape is exchanged by the teams)
Apparently shareholders of Apple aren't happy, stock down $3.24 today!!
Nerds hate football.
They hate what they never manned up to. ;)
Cal Staford is trending right now!
https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Cal%20and%20Stanford%22&src=trend_click&vertical=trends
hail mary?
I will be personally disappointed if Cal football is relegated to a streaming service for which users must pay an additional fee. I understand the national access advantages, but it seems as if slowly but surely our visibility is wanning.
We have been a crappy, middling team for too long.
You don't build a national following with "alsoran" results.
This was the deal that we needed when the Pac-12 Network was founded. If we still had USC, UCLA we'd get enough subscribers to make it work. But I just don't see the remaining fanbases being big enough to get close to $31M through incentives if we're starting around $20. The sub will either be really expensive or schools will need a really big share of the subscriber dollars.
The existing P12 Network infrastructure is pretty good so at least we understand that aspect.
I'll put away my Apple dislike if I can finally pay only for the product I want: PAC1X football and other PAC1X sports.
So the key word here is “primarily.” That tells me there’s linear still in play. The question is what would FOX and ESPN rather do?
126.8 million per year (31.7m per school) is the magic number that Fox and ESPN are willing to spend for up to 4 Pac-12 teams to defect to the Big 12 (possibly 22 million less for Fox). ESPN needs the late night inventory. Fox does not unless some Mountain West teams are poached. And Colorado has now taken 31.7m of that pot so it’s closer to 70-95.1 million.
If the Pac wants a successful media deal, they need to either convince ESPN that their Tier 1 content is worth taking, and then poach some Mountain West teams to force Fox to pay for rights to Pac games on Fox or FS1. Or strike a deal with another linear carrier like TBS for better TV windows.
It’s not wall to wall coverage but it’s about the same linear they get right now and they still get (allegedly) $200m money from Apple, so that should get them within striking distance of the B12 with a lot of upside as everything moves to streaming. Plus you’re on Apple’s back and they will figure it out.
What’s killing this is not expanding first. They should have invited 6-7 schools — SMU, Tulane, and Rice or Memphis for 2024, then SDSU, Boise, Fresno and possibly Colorado State for 2025.
You take linear inventory from the American and Mountain West and force ESPN and Fox to add that to the pot while increasing exposure in two time zones and subscription upside. Force new members to take a diluted share which is more than they had in their current conferences while making legacy schools while.
I‘ll actually give GK the benefit of the doubt here as I’m sure he has some candidates in mind. But this insistence on deal first then expansion is killing the PAC’s chances to get something good.