(08-16-2023 04:02 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 03:32 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  1). So you COULD get the P12N but instead you chose to Dodgers and Lakers programming instead. The lie is that you had no choice. You did have a choice

Where does this logic end? Is there any game that a fan couldn't see if cost and convenience was of no importance? I mean, you could hire someone to go to the game and live stream it back to you. You could watch those sketchy bootleg videos of someone streaming from any network that exists. You could attend every game in person. You could fly in on a blimp and watch from the air.

But you just chose not to. How dare fans not do so? If they were real fans they'd stop at nothing. Why blame the commissioner for not making things more accessible? It's not like it's his job to evaluate what the fan base and the market will tolerate?

Hahahaha. Great post.

I guess I can’t get the ESPN or ABC or SECN or ACCN then either. Because I am currently watching HBO. If cost or convenience were of no importance I could hire a blimp or have someone livestream sportscenter back to me. I could reach for the remote but really shouldn’t the commissioner be responsible for having the content on the station I’m already watching? Isn’t it his job to evaluate what I will tolerate?

Reductio ad absurdum goes both ways.

(08-11-2023 10:44 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The biggest lie in college football, and the single greatest contributor to the PAC’s demise was mostly spread by PAC fans.

“I can’t even get the PAC12 network”.

Was that true? No. It was a lie, as we’ll see below. And we can speculate as to why this lie was so prevalent especially on places like this sub.

Some key time points for expanding access to the PAC12 include:

Summer 2011 DISH.

August, 2014 YouTube International.

February 2015 Sling.

**DISH**
In the Summer of 2011, prior to the inaugural PAC12 kickoff, DISH was added as a PAC partner. This made the P12N available nationally. So what were the barriers to adoption for PAC fans?

1) Don’t have my own roof. Renters, apartment dwellers, and other people who literally could not place a dish on a roof did not have access.
2) NFL Sunday ticket. The only reason why DTV was a sticking point was that DTV was the home of NFL Sunday Ticket. Any PAC fan who chose DTV (and the choice was aided by the fact that if you called DTV to cancel and mentioned the P12N they would offer you free Sunday Ticket) obviously had a roof and the opportunity to get DISH. Although this segment of NFL-first fans had the opportunity to get DISH and P12N, they seem almost universally to have made the false claim/lie that “I can’t even get the P12N”. This lie served the purpose of protecting their egos as fans, because to say that I chose not to get the P12N would accurately characterize this segment as fair-weather fans.

**YouTube International**
The PAC12 network became available on YouTube International for $10 month. In August 2014. As an a la carte option this was the dream of early adopter cord-cutters. All that stood in their path was a $10 subscription and a VPN to spoof their location. I think a lot of early core-cutters had the VPN issue solved. So why didn’t they do this? Likely lack of awareness. Any positive mention of P12N access on any forum, including this one, was completely drowned out be the DTV-subscribing “I can’t get the P12N” fans noted above.

**Sling**
For people without roofs, Sling became an option in February 2015. For the 98% of American households with broadband Internet access, getting the PAC12N was a few mouse clicks away.

Now for 98% of the population “I can’t get the P12N” was an outright lie. So why is this narrative so pervasive on r/CFB?

Because P12 fans suck. Not because they didn’t pay for a service that might make them chose against another interest like the NFL. But because overwhelmingly people who made this choice outright will lied about it to cover the fact that they are fair-weather fans. And in doing so they completely undermined the financial viability of the conference by destroying its public perception and creating a barrier of misinformation that kept potential new subscribers and revenue from being realized by the conference.

No the problem was 60% of your population was in a state where the universities were increasingly elite and disconnected from the bulk of the population. This problem was especially true in Northern CA were people had the 49ers as an option versus LA where for many years no Pro team existed. When you have no connection and you don’t win at the level of the Pro teams like the Niners you are destined to fail.

(08-11-2023 11:15 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 10:44 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The biggest lie in college football, and the single greatest contributor to the PAC’s demise was mostly spread by PAC fans.

“I can’t even get the PAC12 network”.

Was that true? No. It was a lie, as we’ll see below. And we can speculate as to why this lie was so prevalent especially on places like this sub.

Some key time points for expanding access to the PAC12 include:

Summer 2011 DISH.

August, 2014 YouTube International.

February 2015 Sling.

**DISH**
In the Summer of 2011, prior to the inaugural PAC12 kickoff, DISH was added as a PAC partner. This made the P12N available nationally. So what were the barriers to adoption for PAC fans?

1) Don’t have my own roof. Renters, apartment dwellers, and other people who literally could not place a dish on a roof did not have access.
2) NFL Sunday ticket. The only reason why DTV was a sticking point was that DTV was the home of NFL Sunday Ticket. Any PAC fan who chose DTV (and the choice was aided by the fact that if you called DTV to cancel and mentioned the P12N they would offer you free Sunday Ticket) obviously had a roof and the opportunity to get DISH. Although this segment of NFL-first fans had the opportunity to get DISH and P12N, they seem almost universally to have made the false claim/lie that “I can’t even get the P12N”. This lie served the purpose of protecting their egos as fans, because to say that I chose not to get the P12N would accurately characterize this segment as fair-weather fans.

**YouTube International**
The PAC12 network became available on YouTube International for $10 month. In August 2014. As an a la carte option this was the dream of early adopter cord-cutters. All that stood in their path was a $10 subscription and a VPN to spoof their location. I think a lot of early core-cutters had the VPN issue solved. So why didn’t they do this? Likely lack of awareness. Any positive mention of P12N access on any forum, including this one, was completely drowned out be the DTV-subscribing “I can’t get the P12N” fans noted above.

**Sling**
For people without roofs, Sling became an option in February 2015. For the 98% of American households with broadband Internet access, getting the PAC12N was a few mouse clicks away.

Now for 98% of the population “I can’t get the P12N” was an outright lie. So why is this narrative so pervasive on r/CFB?

Because P12 fans suck. Not because they didn’t pay for a service that might make them chose against another interest like the NFL. But because overwhelmingly people who made this choice outright will lied about it to cover the fact that they are fair-weather fans. And in doing so they completely undermined the financial viability of the conference by destroying its public perception and creating a barrier of misinformation that kept potential new subscribers and revenue from being realized by the conference.

I think a better way to say that was "It's too much hassle to get PacN". Let's face it, we're mostly a bunch of Cavemen watching Gladiators fight in the Colosseum, only now we can do it from our couch using a remote control. That's how our daddies watched football, and, gosh darnit, that's how WE wanna watch football! The PacN introduced enough barriers to entry that no casual fan would make effort, only committed fans of individual teams. THAT was its mistake. Today, in 2023, they could have rolled something like that out and it still would have struggled, though adoption rates would have been a bit higher at least, but back in 2012? It was just an idea before its time.

No for much of that time the NFL network was on DirectTV and Dish had the PAC-12 network. I cared more about watching the NFL than the PAC-12. Now had then been smart and added water polo games for teams other than the 4 PAC schools or Fresno State sports I might have made different choices but the elitists that they are never did that.

It wasn’t worth my money or time.

(08-11-2023 11:22 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  What's needed to revive people being sports fans on the West Coast? Long term.

Sports fans or PAC college sports fans?

Fresno is 3rd on the list among all G5’s for average attendance?
High School football is talked about on the news extensively in Sac?
Have you seen the Kings fans for things like summer league?

People aren’t College Sports fans and especially are not Cal and Stanford College sports fans. Many Central California residents actively despise Cal and Stanford. It would be like asking what’s it going to take to make West Virginians Columbia fans?

(08-11-2023 05:15 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I'm in CA and don't get P12 network. I had to watch Fresno St. vs PAC games on reddit streams

Yeah well, I live in Cincinnati and I get the PAC12, P12 Mountain, P12 Dessert, P12 Bay Area, P12 NW, and P12 SoCal on Spectrum Cable....Wife handles the cable bill and claims we are not paying a premium, they must be included with the package that has MLB, NFL,NHL and NBA networks which are must haves.With the possible exception of an occasional late night Mick Cronin UCLA basketball game they are never watched.....

The reason why I’m belaboring this point is because I think this lie also has the potential to kill the B12.

If one reads the recent news about a single PAC professor saying the conference was worth $50M and recognizes the hubris there, one should also recognize that B12 fans saying the conference is worth $31M in 2030 because that’s what FOX/ESPN agreed to a few years ago should recognize the hubris in that statement as well.

The conference is worth whatever ESPN decide, and their wallet is shrinking, and they along with FOX have clearly indicated that they are moving to consolidation. They may spend 70% on B1G/SEC now, but that proportion is only going to grow in the next contract cycle.

The B12 desperately needs some negotiating leverage going into 2030. I’m trying to make the case that the failure of the P12N wasn’t that people couldn’t get it, but that they chose other options largely because they were pro-sports first in their fandom. Most of the West Coast people arguing that they “couldn’t get it” have proved this point for me.

The B12 doesn’t have the markets, but the B12 s now more college-forward in its fandom demographic. I think acquiring the P12N would be a smart insurance policy for the B12 if it can be done on the cheap. Keep it alive with whatever content ESPN/FOX haven’t picked up and keep that new streaming partner option open for 2030 if ESPN and FOx try to lowball.

Michael Crow on Radio: Explains how the PAC12 died


Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGwCYfWCaY

(08-16-2023 08:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The reason why I’m belaboring this point is because I think this lie also has the potential to kill the B12.

If one reads the recent news about a single PAC professor saying the conference was worth $50M and recognizes the hubris there, one should also recognize that B12 fans saying the conference is worth $31M in 2030 because that’s what FOX/ESPN agreed to a few years ago should recognize the hubris in that statement as well.

The conference is worth whatever ESPN decide, and their wallet is shrinking, and they along with FOX have clearly indicated that they are moving to consolidation. They may spend 70% on B1G/SEC now, but that proportion is only going to grow in the next contract cycle.

The B12 desperately needs some negotiating leverage going into 2030. I’m trying to make the case that the failure of the P12N wasn’t that people couldn’t get it, but that they chose other options largely because they were pro-sports first in their fandom. Most of the West Coast people arguing that they “couldn’t get it” have proved this point for me.

The B12 doesn’t have the markets, but the B12 s now more college-forward in its fandom demographic. I think acquiring the P12N would be a smart insurance policy for the B12 if it can be done on the cheap. Keep it alive with whatever content ESPN/FOX haven’t picked up and keep that new streaming partner option open for 2030 if ESPN and FOx try to lowball.

What a crock! They are worth $31.7 million because they got that in a fair market deal. If you don't believe that, you are one of these who believes in kooky conspiracies.

Conference networks are yesterday's economy. They are all gradually dying. Someone would have to pay to get anyone to take the Pac 12 network. You're much better partnering with something like ESPN+ for the future.

You are still in denial. The Pac 12 was on the precipice because it didn't have the fan support. It only took a few mistakes to push them over the edge. The r8 had better average fan support than the Pac 12 WITH USC and UCLA.

(08-16-2023 06:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I guess I can’t get the ESPN or ABC or SECN or ACCN then either. Because I am currently watching HBO. If cost or convenience were of no importance I could hire a blimp or have someone livestream sportscenter back to me. I could reach for the remote but really shouldn’t the commissioner be responsible for having the content on the station I’m already watching? Isn’t it his job to evaluate what I will tolerate?

Reductio ad absurdum goes both ways.

No. Just your way.

Dedicated fans like the ones on this board don't make a network. Its the more casual fans. The Pac 12 needed to partner with Fox or ESPN as even the SEC and Big 10 with their larger, more fervent fans bases did.

(08-16-2023 06:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I guess I can’t get the ESPN or ABC or SECN or ACCN then either. Because I am currently watching HBO. If cost or convenience were of no importance I could hire a blimp or have someone livestream sportscenter back to me. I could reach for the remote but really shouldn’t the commissioner be responsible for having the content on the station I’m already watching? Isn’t it his job to evaluate what I will tolerate?

Reductio ad absurdum goes both ways.

Alright fine. But nobody is making the argument that "fans are lying about not getting the network when all they had to do was change the channel." Where is the line? How much trouble should conferences expect their fans to put up with? How much money is the right amount?

I think the PAC-12 found their answer.

You want to be pedantic about "I couldn't get it" not being technically true. When would that have no longer been true? Either direction?

For a long time, Comcast had a monopoly in much of my neighborhood. With the tall trees, many houses couldn't get satellite. And it was several years before AT&T got to our neighborhood.

(08-16-2023 09:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 08:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The reason why I’m belaboring this point is because I think this lie also has the potential to kill the B12.

If one reads the recent news about a single PAC professor saying the conference was worth $50M and recognizes the hubris there, one should also recognize that B12 fans saying the conference is worth $31M in 2030 because that’s what FOX/ESPN agreed to a few years ago should recognize the hubris in that statement as well.

The conference is worth whatever ESPN decide, and their wallet is shrinking, and they along with FOX have clearly indicated that they are moving to consolidation. They may spend 70% on B1G/SEC now, but that proportion is only going to grow in the next contract cycle.

The B12 desperately needs some negotiating leverage going into 2030. I’m trying to make the case that the failure of the P12N wasn’t that people couldn’t get it, but that they chose other options largely because they were pro-sports first in their fandom. Most of the West Coast people arguing that they “couldn’t get it” have proved this point for me.

The B12 doesn’t have the markets, but the B12 s now more college-forward in its fandom demographic. I think acquiring the P12N would be a smart insurance policy for the B12 if it can be done on the cheap. Keep it alive with whatever content ESPN/FOX haven’t picked up and keep that new streaming partner option open for 2030 if ESPN and FOx try to lowball.

What a crock! They are worth $31.7 million because they got that in a fair market deal. If you don't believe that, you are one of these who believes in kooky conspiracies.

Conference networks are yesterday's economy. They are all gradually dying. Someone would have to pay to get anyone to take the Pac 12 network. You're much better partnering with something like ESPN+ for the future.

You are still in denial. The Pac 12 was on the precipice because it didn't have the fan support. It only took a few mistakes to push them over the edge. The r8 had better average fan support than the Pac 12 WITH USC and UCLA.

The B12 are worth $31M until 2030. ESPN is giving every single possible indication that 1) their revenue and war chest are shrinking and 2) that their investment will increasingly be disproportionately in P2 content.

So that $31M offer in 2023 does NOT translate into any intrinsic value that will carry forward beyond 2030. The B12 will be back to square one with value assigned by ESPN/FOX or any third party without respect to the prior contract.

2) conference networks are yesterday’s economy- which you didn’t take into account when you posted about the ESPN/FOX needing 60 teams worth of inventory to fill all their windows including the conference network windows. The ACCN, the BTN, and the SECN are going to be worthless in 2030 when the cable bundle has died. The only conference network with any potential residual value is the lowly P12N, because it’s better suited for a streaming model than the cable bundle model.

(08-17-2023 10:44 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 09:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 08:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The reason why I’m belaboring this point is because I think this lie also has the potential to kill the B12.

If one reads the recent news about a single PAC professor saying the conference was worth $50M and recognizes the hubris there, one should also recognize that B12 fans saying the conference is worth $31M in 2030 because that’s what FOX/ESPN agreed to a few years ago should recognize the hubris in that statement as well.

The conference is worth whatever ESPN decide, and their wallet is shrinking, and they along with FOX have clearly indicated that they are moving to consolidation. They may spend 70% on B1G/SEC now, but that proportion is only going to grow in the next contract cycle.

The B12 desperately needs some negotiating leverage going into 2030. I’m trying to make the case that the failure of the P12N wasn’t that people couldn’t get it, but that they chose other options largely because they were pro-sports first in their fandom. Most of the West Coast people arguing that they “couldn’t get it” have proved this point for me.

The B12 doesn’t have the markets, but the B12 s now more college-forward in its fandom demographic. I think acquiring the P12N would be a smart insurance policy for the B12 if it can be done on the cheap. Keep it alive with whatever content ESPN/FOX haven’t picked up and keep that new streaming partner option open for 2030 if ESPN and FOx try to lowball.

What a crock! They are worth $31.7 million because they got that in a fair market deal. If you don't believe that, you are one of these who believes in kooky conspiracies.

Conference networks are yesterday's economy. They are all gradually dying. Someone would have to pay to get anyone to take the Pac 12 network. You're much better partnering with something like ESPN+ for the future.

You are still in denial. The Pac 12 was on the precipice because it didn't have the fan support. It only took a few mistakes to push them over the edge. The r8 had better average fan support than the Pac 12 WITH USC and UCLA.

The B12 are worth $31M until 2030. ESPN is giving every single possible indication that 1) their revenue and war chest are shrinking and 2) that their investment will increasingly be disproportionately in P2 content.

So that $31M offer in 2023 does NOT translate into any intrinsic value that will carry forward beyond 2030. The B12 will be back to square one with value assigned by ESPN/FOX or any third party without respect to the prior contract.

2) conference networks are yesterday’s economy- which you didn’t take into account when you posted about the ESPN/FOX needing 60 teams worth of inventory to fill all their windows including the conference network windows. The ACCN, the BTN, and the SECN are going to be worthless in 2030 when the cable bundle has died. The only conference network with any potential residual value is the lowly P12N, because it’s better suited for a streaming model than the cable bundle model.

2) Yes I did. As I said, there will be clunkers. Those go on a streaming service. They need better games. TCU-Oklahoma St. will usually blow away Purdue-Minnesota or Mississippi St.-Vanderbilt.

1) The networks are spending more than ever on sports. Yes, the cream will get the biggest share. That doesn't mean others won't keep rising at a slower rate. Fact is that the AAC, MWC, MAC and Sun Belt have all significantly increased their pay. The Big 12 without UT and OU and with 4 G5s got a 50% raise over their last contract! Yes, the Big 10 and SEC are getting 200-300% raises, but the Big 12 is still getting paid.

And there is only so much you can spend. Texas has been sending $10-$15 million a year back to the academic side. Same for Ohio St. If players get formally paid, well we will have to see how that all plays out. I suspect it will end up being fixed scales with NIL being the big difference.

(08-16-2023 03:32 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 08:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  When my home was being built in 2005, I had it prewired for cable TV. Charter/Spectrum is the cable provider for the area that I live in. I am not going to switch providers just for the Pac-12 Network. Since I live in Southern California, it made more sense for the provider to add the Pac-12 Network in order for fans of UCLA and USC to watch their local teams.

Spectrum SportsNet LA was the exclusive home for Dodger and Laker home games. If I changed providers, I lost access to the Dodger and Laker home games. I was happy with Spectrum, the sports coverage was good, and I felt no need to change.

1). So you COULD get the P12N but instead you chose to Dodgers and Lakers programming instead. The lie is that you had no choice. You did have a choice and chose pro sports ( what I said was the most common reason for choosing not to get the P12N.
2). I want you to think a minute about how stupid the bolded part of your post is. Just abjectly moronic.

So when you continued to pay Spectrum your monthly cable bill, it made sense for them to go out and secure more programming and eat into their bottom line in order to retain the customer that’s already happy with their product and at no risk of being lost as a customer?

The reason why DTV and Spectrum didn’t carry the P12N isn’t because fans like you didn’t whine, it’s because you kept paying the bill and using their product. That wasn’t a failure on Larry Scott’s part. That’s a failure by the “fans”. Why don’t you guys understand this?

This is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make.

Had the SEC or B1G or BXII gone to market with the P12N, their fans would have changed providers and caused the non-carrying providers to capitulate and carry the network. ACC might have been in the same boat with pro-sports first fans. But I think even the ACC comes through and makes its network work, because I don’t think the entitlement component would have been as strong.

That is ridiculous. You are not making your point, whatever point you are trying to make.

1. I have over 500 channels with Spectrum plus high-speed internet. I had every sports network plus exclusive coverage of Dodgers and Lakers home games. Everything. The one exception was the Pac-12 Network. When I contacted the Pac-12, they would suggest that I contact Spectrum. When I contacted Spectrum, they would redirect me back to the Pac-12. They could not agree on the carriage fees until 2017. My wife also was happy with Spectrum, and she might have lost some of her favorite channels with someone else. The idea that I would drop Spectrum just to find a carrier for the Pac-12 Network was and is ridiculous.

2. The argument you are making is idiotic. The SECN is owned primarily by ESPN and Big Ten Network primarily owned by FOX. They got their channels on Spectrum and DirecTV. The Pac-12 Network went out on their own and completely screwed up the distribution. SEC and Big Ten fans did not have to consider switching service providers just for one network because ESPN and FOX were handling the distribution. The Pac-12 Network had Larry Scott handling distribution for the conference.

3. The majority of sports bars, restaurants, and hotels in Southern California carry DirecTV. A lot of homes have DirecTV. The Pac-12 Network never did cut a deal with DirecTV. You cannot have a situation where you are unable to find a place to watch a Pac-12 game in Southern California. That kills recruiting and costs the conference revenue and visibility. The Pac-12 Network and their distribution issues are one big reason that USC and UCLA left for the Big Ten. Asking everyone to switch service providers because the Pac-12 is incompetent is ridiculous.

(08-16-2023 08:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The reason why I’m belaboring this point is because I think this lie also has the potential to kill the B12.

If one reads the recent news about a single PAC professor saying the conference was worth $50M and recognizes the hubris there, one should also recognize that B12 fans saying the conference is worth $31M in 2030 because that’s what FOX/ESPN agreed to a few years ago should recognize the hubris in that statement as well.

The conference is worth whatever ESPN decide, and their wallet is shrinking, and they along with FOX have clearly indicated that they are moving to consolidation. They may spend 70% on B1G/SEC now, but that proportion is only going to grow in the next contract cycle.

The B12 desperately needs some negotiating leverage going into 2030. I’m trying to make the case that the failure of the P12N wasn’t that people couldn’t get it, but that they chose other options largely because they were pro-sports first in their fandom. Most of the West Coast people arguing that they “couldn’t get it” have proved this point for me.

The B12 doesn’t have the markets, but the B12 s now more college-forward in its fandom demographic. I think acquiring the P12N would be a smart insurance policy for the B12 if it can be done on the cheap. Keep it alive with whatever content ESPN/FOX haven’t picked up and keep that new streaming partner option open for 2030 if ESPN and FOx try to lowball.

The Conference media payouts were determined by ESPN and Fox this cycle, sure. But next cycle perhaps it's Apple or other streamers. It's possible that ESPN and Fox go all in on the CFP and leave all of the Conferences to the other OTA and streaming services in the 2030s. Perhaps they keep their current split with Fox and Friends on the B1G and ESPN with the SEC, but that's hardly a guarantee.

No offense, but if I was a Big 12 fan, I'd put more faith in Yormark's ability to determine negotiating leverage points than in the guy who thought UCSB was a good backfill candidate for the Pac.

(08-17-2023 10:44 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 09:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-16-2023 08:28 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The reason why I’m belaboring this point is because I think this lie also has the potential to kill the B12.

If one reads the recent news about a single PAC professor saying the conference was worth $50M and recognizes the hubris there, one should also recognize that B12 fans saying the conference is worth $31M in 2030 because that’s what FOX/ESPN agreed to a few years ago should recognize the hubris in that statement as well.

The conference is worth whatever ESPN decide, and their wallet is shrinking, and they along with FOX have clearly indicated that they are moving to consolidation. They may spend 70% on B1G/SEC now, but that proportion is only going to grow in the next contract cycle.

The B12 desperately needs some negotiating leverage going into 2030. I’m trying to make the case that the failure of the P12N wasn’t that people couldn’t get it, but that they chose other options largely because they were pro-sports first in their fandom. Most of the West Coast people arguing that they “couldn’t get it” have proved this point for me.

The B12 doesn’t have the markets, but the B12 s now more college-forward in its fandom demographic. I think acquiring the P12N would be a smart insurance policy for the B12 if it can be done on the cheap. Keep it alive with whatever content ESPN/FOX haven’t picked up and keep that new streaming partner option open for 2030 if ESPN and FOx try to lowball.

What a crock! They are worth $31.7 million because they got that in a fair market deal. If you don't believe that, you are one of these who believes in kooky conspiracies.

Conference networks are yesterday's economy. They are all gradually dying. Someone would have to pay to get anyone to take the Pac 12 network. You're much better partnering with something like ESPN+ for the future.

You are still in denial. The Pac 12 was on the precipice because it didn't have the fan support. It only took a few mistakes to push them over the edge. The r8 had better average fan support than the Pac 12 WITH USC and UCLA.

The B12 are worth $31M until 2030. ESPN is giving every single possible indication that 1) their revenue and war chest are shrinking and 2) that their investment will increasingly be disproportionately in P2 content.

So that $31M offer in 2023 does NOT translate into any intrinsic value that will carry forward beyond 2030. The B12 will be back to square one with value assigned by ESPN/FOX or any third party without respect to the prior contract.

2) conference networks are yesterday’s economy- which you didn’t take into account when you posted about the ESPN/FOX needing 60 teams worth of inventory to fill all their windows including the conference network windows. The ACCN, the BTN, and the SECN are going to be worthless in 2030 when the cable bundle has died. The only conference network with any potential residual value is the lowly P12N, because it’s better suited for a streaming model than the cable bundle model.

ESPN offered $300m to the Pac 10, but they turned it down, so then they turned around and offered $240m for 63% of the 12 team Big 12. It looks more to me that Kliavkoff just screwed the pooch and is trying to blame it all on some random, unnamed professor, who may or may not even exist.