(03-20-2023 06:16 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:03 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 03:01 PM)JohnJohnson Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 01:10 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  From what I read, the talk of not being close is ESPN for all broadcast rights.

You are sounding desperate.

If you read the quote referenced in the first post of this thread you will see the amount mentioned is $31M. To me, that appears to be for the entire rights. If you disagree, just say so and then name one time you have actually heard that ESPN offered that much. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The PAC allowed the window for ESPN's exclusive negotiating rights period to expire. they never expected ESPN to pay what they wanted for all rights, including Tier 2 rights on ESPN2. Since the PAC has its own network and broadcasting infrastructure they do not need ESPN2. Given the posts here about ESPN layoffs, where do you think the majority of those will be? I'm guessing ESPN2 gets the brunt of it.

Personally, I'd like to see Apple go all in and buy the entire PAC broadcast rights and then sell the Tier 1 rights to someone like Turner Broadcasting (a Warner Bros subsidiary). Who doesn't have their channels in their cable package? There is no company with more capital to invest than Apple and they have staked their name on being innovative. However, it does appear that ESPN is likely to continue with the Tier 1 rights. I don't think they can afford to write off 20% of the country.

The OP's article didn't source where Marchand said the $31 million. It was a direct quote so I doubt they were missing something (as outkick sometimes does). But I just haven't seen where that came from.

Since the OP posted it and there are those who believe this current "development" spells the imminent destruction of the PAC, I felt comfortable using that number to make my point; which is that the $31M ESPN offer was never reported by anyone that I can recall and that it would be for both the Tier 1 & 2 rights. However, the PAC chose to let the "exclusive negotiation period" end. Now, ESPN has been negotiating but the PAC has also been negotiating with Amazon and Apple, which Marchand has little, if any, sources to rely on. He is likely blind as to what is being offered by them. What the PAC can offer Amazon and Apple is a "turn-key" production company for them to use to broadcast their content. The B12 didn't have that to offer and early on people like Bob Thompson has said the PAC1X Network is an asset of value, though not so much to ESPN which already has production facilities and assets. ESPN is currently having financial issues which are likely having some effect on the current negotiations and they have lost 25% of their market over the last 12 years. One might be a bit hesitant to bind themselves to a company that appears to be on a downward trend.

Bob Thompson's valuation of the Pac was $30m per school plus potential Pac Network monetization, but he has also said that the B12 took "less value" than they could have with the $31m contract they signed, so its all relative to what the actual market determines. Most projections for the B12 around that time were in between $35-37m. If you factor in that difference, it puts the Pac $26-28m + monetizing Pac network for $2-3m per team. But that's also not factoring in the Wall Street news and RSN bankruptcies that have changed the market since then.

Marchand's comments about Apple are in relation to the deal they made with MLS. He doesn't need sources within Apple, because it's a business in an industry he's an expert in: He doesn't see them going away from that model because, like every business, you have to scale your product. It would be bad business for Apple to go a different route with the Pac. Add in what Ourand said on the WilCo podcast: That Apple will be willing to pay for exclusivity. They won't get the $31m without going all in with Apple. (Apple could still sublicense to networks, though.)

(03-20-2023 06:55 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 06:16 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:03 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 03:01 PM)JohnJohnson Wrote:  You are sounding desperate.

If you read the quote referenced in the first post of this thread you will see the amount mentioned is $31M. To me, that appears to be for the entire rights. If you disagree, just say so and then name one time you have actually heard that ESPN offered that much. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The PAC allowed the window for ESPN's exclusive negotiating rights period to expire. they never expected ESPN to pay what they wanted for all rights, including Tier 2 rights on ESPN2. Since the PAC has its own network and broadcasting infrastructure they do not need ESPN2. Given the posts here about ESPN layoffs, where do you think the majority of those will be? I'm guessing ESPN2 gets the brunt of it.

Personally, I'd like to see Apple go all in and buy the entire PAC broadcast rights and then sell the Tier 1 rights to someone like Turner Broadcasting (a Warner Bros subsidiary). Who doesn't have their channels in their cable package? There is no company with more capital to invest than Apple and they have staked their name on being innovative. However, it does appear that ESPN is likely to continue with the Tier 1 rights. I don't think they can afford to write off 20% of the country.

The OP's article didn't source where Marchand said the $31 million. It was a direct quote so I doubt they were missing something (as outkick sometimes does). But I just haven't seen where that came from.

Since the OP posted it and there are those who believe this current "development" spells the imminent destruction of the PAC, I felt comfortable using that number to make my point; which is that the $31M ESPN offer was never reported by anyone that I can recall and that it would be for both the Tier 1 & 2 rights. However, the PAC chose to let the "exclusive negotiation period" end. Now, ESPN has been negotiating but the PAC has also been negotiating with Amazon and Apple, which Marchand has little, if any, sources to rely on. He is likely blind as to what is being offered by them. What the PAC can offer Amazon and Apple is a "turn-key" production company for them to use to broadcast their content. The B12 didn't have that to offer and early on people like Bob Thompson has said the PAC1X Network is an asset of value, though not so much to ESPN which already has production facilities and assets. ESPN is currently having financial issues which are likely having some effect on the current negotiations and they have lost 25% of their market over the last 12 years. One might be a bit hesitant to bind themselves to a company that appears to be on a downward trend.

Bob Thompson's valuation of the Pac was $30m per school plus potential Pac Network monetization, but he has also said that the B12 took "less value" than they could have with the $31m contract they signed, so its all relative to what the actual market determines. Most projections for the B12 around that time were in between $35-37m. If you factor in that difference, it puts the Pac $26-28m + monetizing Pac network for $2-3m per team. But that's also not factoring in the Wall Street news and RSN bankruptcies that have changed the market since then.

Marchand's comments about Apple are in relation to the deal they made with MLS. He doesn't need sources within Apple, because it's a business in an industry he's an expert in: He doesn't see them going away from that model because, like every business, you have to scale your product. It would be bad business for Apple to go a different route with the Pac. Add in what Ourand said on the WilCo podcast: That Apple will be willing to pay for exclusivity. They won't get the $31m without going all in with Apple. (Apple could still sublicense to networks, though.)

The big 12 may have left money on the table or they took less because that was what the market actually valued them at. The pac 10 didn’t want to leave money on the table so they went to open market and thus far has nothing.
Maybe neither the big12 nor the pac10 were low balled; they got offered market value rather than self perceived value.

(03-20-2023 08:02 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 06:55 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 06:16 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:03 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  If you read the quote referenced in the first post of this thread you will see the amount mentioned is $31M. To me, that appears to be for the entire rights. If you disagree, just say so and then name one time you have actually heard that ESPN offered that much. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The PAC allowed the window for ESPN's exclusive negotiating rights period to expire. they never expected ESPN to pay what they wanted for all rights, including Tier 2 rights on ESPN2. Since the PAC has its own network and broadcasting infrastructure they do not need ESPN2. Given the posts here about ESPN layoffs, where do you think the majority of those will be? I'm guessing ESPN2 gets the brunt of it.

Personally, I'd like to see Apple go all in and buy the entire PAC broadcast rights and then sell the Tier 1 rights to someone like Turner Broadcasting (a Warner Bros subsidiary). Who doesn't have their channels in their cable package? There is no company with more capital to invest than Apple and they have staked their name on being innovative. However, it does appear that ESPN is likely to continue with the Tier 1 rights. I don't think they can afford to write off 20% of the country.

The OP's article didn't source where Marchand said the $31 million. It was a direct quote so I doubt they were missing something (as outkick sometimes does). But I just haven't seen where that came from.

Since the OP posted it and there are those who believe this current "development" spells the imminent destruction of the PAC, I felt comfortable using that number to make my point; which is that the $31M ESPN offer was never reported by anyone that I can recall and that it would be for both the Tier 1 & 2 rights. However, the PAC chose to let the "exclusive negotiation period" end. Now, ESPN has been negotiating but the PAC has also been negotiating with Amazon and Apple, which Marchand has little, if any, sources to rely on. He is likely blind as to what is being offered by them. What the PAC can offer Amazon and Apple is a "turn-key" production company for them to use to broadcast their content. The B12 didn't have that to offer and early on people like Bob Thompson has said the PAC1X Network is an asset of value, though not so much to ESPN which already has production facilities and assets. ESPN is currently having financial issues which are likely having some effect on the current negotiations and they have lost 25% of their market over the last 12 years. One might be a bit hesitant to bind themselves to a company that appears to be on a downward trend.

Bob Thompson's valuation of the Pac was $30m per school plus potential Pac Network monetization, but he has also said that the B12 took "less value" than they could have with the $31m contract they signed, so its all relative to what the actual market determines. Most projections for the B12 around that time were in between $35-37m. If you factor in that difference, it puts the Pac $26-28m + monetizing Pac network for $2-3m per team. But that's also not factoring in the Wall Street news and RSN bankruptcies that have changed the market since then.

Marchand's comments about Apple are in relation to the deal they made with MLS. He doesn't need sources within Apple, because it's a business in an industry he's an expert in: He doesn't see them going away from that model because, like every business, you have to scale your product. It would be bad business for Apple to go a different route with the Pac. Add in what Ourand said on the WilCo podcast: That Apple will be willing to pay for exclusivity. They won't get the $31m without going all in with Apple. (Apple could still sublicense to networks, though.)

The big 12 may have left money on the table or they took less because that was what the market actually valued them at. The pac 10 didn’t want to leave money on the table so they went to open market and thus far has nothing.
Maybe neither the big12 nor the pac10 were low balled; they got offered market value rather than self perceived value.

The Big 12 is getting things for working with networks on price point. A win-win

The script by the Pac 10 presidents and the speaking tours by the Arizona and Arizona St presidents, 2 of the weakest links, now make sense.

There is no deal. Kliavcoff is having a hard time getting there. So he gets his president on a script about "layups." Those speeches were for ESPN and Amazon. They don't want to undermine Kliavcoff's negotiating position. At the same time they throw out the possibility of leaving, not just to be honest, but also to let ESPN and Amazon know they could walk away from the table.

(03-20-2023 03:59 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 02:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 02:05 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 01:22 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 01:19 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Sports bars have smart tvs now.

Its not much effort to change from Linear TV to the App.

My local sports bar has been playing ESPN+ games without an issue. The waitress is actually a lot faster with tablet than the traditional tv remove and finding the channel.

I think you highly underestimate the number of bars that won't be adding streaming at this time. Do you think any chain is? BW3's and other sports bars of the sort don't have any of what you state here. Maybe your hole in the wall bar will (they are my favorite) but I've yet to see any chain sports bar do that.

It's coming. MLS won't get them to do it, the Pac won't get them to do it, but they'll all eventually do it b/c of a critical mass of desirable content.

They won't need streaming for MLS--Apple/MLS made a deal with DirecTV. Scroll up.

Too many people misunderstand what purchasing "broadcast rights" means." It means you have purchased the rights to broadcast the content on any platform you see fit. If you have the ability to broadcast it, you can do it yourself - all of it if you want. If you want to contract that out to another media source, you can. If you want to mix those two up, broadcast some yourself while contracting some out, you can. If you want to buy the rights to ensure the content is never broadcast, you can, though it is unlikely you could get the sellers of the content to agree to that.

Nonsense. These contracts are very complex with lots of specifics. The B12 contract with ESPN and Fox, for instance, gives a specific number of games that minimum must be on big Fox and ESPN yearly. ESPN and Fox could only sell those rights if the contract allows. The B12 understands their games are going to be linear.....not sold off.

Now if the contract allows for the selling games you may see it. It's gotta be in the contract, tlhough. It's not done willie nillie. You don't know what you are talking about.

(03-20-2023 03:08 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 03:01 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Utah’s President Taylor Randall gives the latest on the Pac-12 Media Rights deal on ESPN 700.

- Did not dispute discussions with Big12, says the Big12 has a bunch of really great universities.

The sour talk has turned sweet? Sounds as if Tuesday will be interesting.

Well, Canzano says you're a Big 12 anon and you'll be left holding the bag and basically, don't look at the man behind the curtain...

And none of the PAC loving "journalists" have ever been wrong before. Just ask them.

(03-20-2023 08:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, Canzano says you're a Big 12 anon and you'll be left holding the bag

What bag would that be? One with ESPN and Fox will actual money in it?


Clownzano has kind of embarrassed himself.

(03-20-2023 08:55 PM)JohnJohnson Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, Canzano says you're a Big 12 anon and you'll be left holding the bag

What bag would that be? One with ESPN and Fox will actual money in it?


Clownzano has kind of embarrassed himself.

I've been wondering that myself.

Pac-12 media rights: Kliavkoff under pressure as saga nears conclusion and presidents express optimism

Will Kliavkoff land a deal comparable in revenue to the Big 12’s agreement with Fox and ESPN that will distribute $31.7 million per campus? Will the deal include sufficient exposure on broadcast and cable television? Will the deal include an alternate revenue stream — perhaps a deal to sell statistical data — that has not been the subject of rumor and speculation for all these many months? We could find out this week, when the Pac-12 Board of Directors gathers (remotely) for its latest meeting. Or perhaps the momentous votes will be cast next week. Or the first week of April.

Whatever the exact timing, resolution is close. Could he misread the direction of the puck that badly? Given the advanced state of the negotiations, it seems unlikely.

Not impossible, but unlikely.



Link
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/m...ure-as-sa/

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2...-timeline/

That Marchand report appears to be behind a paywall on the NY Post. The link above talks a little more about what he says (appears to be from the same article the OP's outkick article referred to).

Pac-12 has ‘solidarity’ between remaining members, Utah president Taylor Randall says

University of Utah president Taylor Randall spoke to ESPN 700 radio in Salt Lake City on Monday about the future of the Pac-12 and its media deal. Here’s what you need to know:

- Randall said there is “solidarity” between presidents in the conference.
- He added, “We’ve still got a ways to go” on the media deal but said he is encouraged by what he’s heard from commissioner George Kliavkoff’s office.
- Randall is the third “four corners” school president to speak out and express solidarity with the league recently, joining Arizona’s and Arizona State’s presidents last week.

“It could happen together, it could happen separately,” he said, referring to expansion and the media deal. “Conferences are always talking about expansion. We’ve got a way to go before we make public announcements or think seriously about it. We’re gathering information.”


Link
https://theathletic.com/4330214/2023/03/...president/

(03-20-2023 09:16 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Pac-12 has ‘solidarity’ between remaining members, Utah president Taylor Randall says

University of Utah president Taylor Randall spoke to ESPN 700 radio in Salt Lake City on Monday about the future of the Pac-12 and its media deal. Here’s what you need to know:

- Randall said there is “solidarity” between presidents in the conference.
- He added, “We’ve still got a ways to go” on the media deal but said he is encouraged by what he’s heard from commissioner George Kliavkoff’s office.
- Randall is the third “four corners” school president to speak out and express solidarity with the league recently, joining Arizona’s and Arizona State’s presidents last week.

“It could happen together, it could happen separately,” he said, referring to expansion and the media deal. “Conferences are always talking about expansion. We’ve got a way to go before we make public announcements or think seriously about it. We’re gathering information.”


Link
https://theathletic.com/4330214/2023/03/...president/

Funny that The Athletic don’t mention that Utah’s President admitted to talks with the B12. It appears nowhere in the article, and after Utah’s AD’s comments, I thought that was newsworthy.

(03-20-2023 09:16 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Pac-12 has ‘solidarity’ between remaining members, Utah president Taylor Randall says

University of Utah president Taylor Randall spoke to ESPN 700 radio in Salt Lake City on Monday about the future of the Pac-12 and its media deal. Here’s what you need to know:

- Randall said there is “solidarity” between presidents in the conference.
- He added, “We’ve still got a ways to go” on the media deal but said he is encouraged by what he’s heard from commissioner George Kliavkoff’s office.
- Randall is the third “four corners” school president to speak out and express solidarity with the league recently, joining Arizona’s and Arizona State’s presidents last week.

“It could happen together, it could happen separately,” he said, referring to expansion and the media deal. “Conferences are always talking about expansion. We’ve got a way to go before we make public announcements or think seriously about it. We’re gathering information.”


Link
https://theathletic.com/4330214/2023/03/...president/

Yeah, it's looking a little more likely that at least 2 join the Big 12.

(03-20-2023 09:24 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  Funny that The Athletic don’t mention that Utah’s President admitted to talks with the B12. It appears nowhere in the article, and after Utah’s AD’s comments, I thought that was newsworthy.

The B12 has been ringing PAC phones off the hook every day since last summer. Maybe it is newsworthy, though, if a school doesn't send the B12 to voice mail every single time.

(03-20-2023 05:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:39 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Oh fps bullet.

Pac fans have been off the wall defensive in attack mode on the Big 12 and anyone who said anything negative about the Pac 10's prospects or who believed reliable sources like Brett McMurphy that the Big 10 had big interest in Washington and Oregon. They make comments like you just did without any detail. Because there is none. Just defensive emotions.

And you generated a little bit (not a lot) yourself.

Its your defensiveness. You've now gone into the sky is falling mode.

The Big 12 is getting a deal that is 60% better than their last deal WITH Texas and OU. Nobody expects the Pac 10 to get less than their previous deal WITH USC and UCLA.

The AAC even got a deal triple their previous deal.

Just because the SEC and Big 10 are getting more doesn't mean there is nothing left.

JRsec, the way that I look at it is like this:

U of O & Washington want to join the B1G. That much is common knowledge. Now, does the B1G want U of O & Washington?? I will be honest and say I don't know.

Arizona, Arizona State, & Colorado allegedly want in the Big XII if the PAC falls apart.

Utah wants the Pac to stay together, if at all possible. Not sure which way they lean if the PAC falls apart.

Oregon State and Washington State are similar to Utah. I am pretty sure that they would love to be in the Big 12 should the PAC collapse.

Cal & Stanford want in the B1G, not sure what their alternate plans are.

(03-20-2023 11:00 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  JRsec, the way that I look at it is like this:

U of O & Washington want to join the B1G. That much is common knowledge. Now, does the B1G want U of O & Washington?? I will be honest and say I don't know.

Arizona, Arizona State, & Colorado allegedly want in the Big XII if the PAC falls apart.

Utah wants the Pac to stay together, if at all possible. Not sure which way they lean if the PAC falls apart.

Oregon State and Washington State are similar to Utah. I am pretty sure that they would love to be in the Big 12 should the PAC collapse.

Cal & Stanford want in the B1G, not sure what their alternate plans are.

I think that's a fair assessment.

I think Colorado might prefer a Big10 invite. but then, I think that's true of most of the AAU schools in the PAC : )

(03-20-2023 11:18 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  ...
I think Colorado might prefer a Big10 invite. but then, I think that's true of most of the AAU schools in the PAC : )

That was kind of you to make it an AAU school thing. ; )

(03-20-2023 11:30 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 11:18 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  ...
I think Colorado might prefer a Big10 invite. but then, I think that's true of most of the AAU schools in the PAC : )

That was kind of you to make it an AAU school thing. ; )

lol, well, that's fair - who wouldn't want to be in the Big10?

(waits for the deluge of "not me"s : )

(03-20-2023 10:46 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 09:24 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  Funny that The Athletic don’t mention that Utah’s President admitted to talks with the B12. It appears nowhere in the article, and after Utah’s AD’s comments, I thought that was newsworthy.

The B12 has been ringing PAC phones off the hook every day since last summer. Maybe it is newsworthy, though, if a school doesn't send the B12 to voice mail every single time.

Lol good work

The PAC surrogate view you’re mocking with satire was always clearly propaganda and projection.

Schools have been bilaterally talking through the channels these things go through. Not that we needed the AZ, ASU or Utah Presidents to know that

The Conzanos and Altimore types are entertaining though

The Pac 12 Can't Get Its Story Straight
The Pac 12 TV deal is coming soon...unless you ask the Utah president. More mixed messages on timing from the conference of champions. The Sports Business Journal says it's likely going to be all Apple if the Pac 12 wants to get to the Big 12's number.


link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MtewXpjGyg