• The KillerFrogs

Big 12 in position to poach Pac 12 schools?

Gary's Shirtless Revenge

Gary's Shirtless Revenge

Full Member
BrewingFrog said:
The GOR is to the Conference, not the Networks. Besides, they are the ones televising the games, regardless of which Conference the program is affiliated with. They will dictate what they will pay if certain circumstances arise, and if this tweet has any legitimacy at all, none of what is alleged would not have been run by the Broadcast Partners before it was floated.
Click to expand...
The networks are buying rights specifically tied to that GOR agreement. You can be a member of a conference and not participate in a GOR, membership and the GOR is seperate. It's a requirement of the TV contract to have a GOR in place (the one the rights agreement was tied to, not just any GOR from any member set), and the GOR has to be done before/in conjunction with the rights agreement.
 
TCUdirtbag

TCUdirtbag

Active Member
hiphopfroggy said:
The best use of the OUT buyout $$ might be to pay off their share of the comcast debt for any incoming PAC school.

4.16m/each
Click to expand...
Nope.

Revenues will actually drop the first few years of the extended Big 12 media deal. The continuing members need the OU/UT buyout money to meet their continuing financial obligations (ie payroll) until the escalators catch up in a few years. The continuing members are especially sensitive to this since the Big 12 has been late in making their revenue distributions as of late.

They aren’t going to mortgage their own houses to pay off the junk mortgages of some PAC 12 defectors (and in response to several other recent posts: not are we giving Oregon or Washington or anyone more than an equal revenue share or any special “outs” to join our league).
 
Last edited:
froginmn

froginmn

Full Member
FrogAbroad said:
Ah, yes, the SEC version of Jimmy Hart...
Click to expand...
images
 
Froggish

Froggish

Active Member
So Apple TV is the latest rumor? Apple is powerful, worldwide company but Apple TV has about 25M subscribers in the U.S. making it pretty far down the list of preferred streaming providers. Seems like it would be pretty isolating for the PAC and its schools. I mean does anyone other than die hard fans watch MLS which is on Apple TV? Got to believe the PAC would rather split their content between a Broadcast/Cable and a streamer like Apple/Amazon. From what I've read, that's not how Apple has historically liked to negotiate. They generally want to control everything
 
Eight

Eight

Member
Froggish said:
So Apple TV is the latest rumor? Apple is powerful, worldwide company but Apple TV has about 25M subscribers in the U.S. making it pretty far down the list of preferred streaming providers. Seems like it would be pretty isolating for the PAC and its schools. I mean does anyone other than die hard fans watch MLS which is on Apple TV? Got to believe the PAC would rather split their content between a Broadcast/Cable and a streamer like Apple/Amazon. From what I've read, that's not how Apple has historically liked to negotiate. They generally want to control everything
Click to expand...

does anyone watch anything on apple tv besides ted lasso?
 
BrewingFrog

BrewingFrog

Was I supposed to type something here?
Big Frog II said:
I would not be happy if the Big 12 games were on Apple TV. Talk about out of sight, out of mind.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's chicken-fried death, and if Kliavkoff came waltzing in to the PAC bigwigs and proclaimed that "Apple TV is our savior!" they would fall on him and tear him to pieces with their teeth. However deranged the Apple people are, they know the PAC is a distressed property, and therefore won't pay them any more than they have to, and that wouldn't be good enough for the PAC programs to in essence fall into a black hole viewership-wise for the duration of the contract.
 
This Ain't Chopped Liver

This Ain't Chopped Liver

Active Member
@Gary's Shirtless Revenge
I see numbers of 25-40 million worldwide Apple TV+ subscribers, and assume many or most are not CFB fans. I wonder how Apple decides they can pay the PAC equal or more than linear and streaming ESPN/ESPN+ is willing to pay. I see a number of 74 million linear ESPN subscribers in the United States (down from about 100 million ten years ago). Streaming ESPN+ has a rapidly growing 25 million U.S. subscribers. Will Apple be more efficient than maybe an obese ESPN? Is ESPN/FOX not paying fair value considering ESPN/ESPN+ has 59-74 million more subscribers (2.5 to 4 times more) than Apple?

If Apple gets a very optimistic 10 million of its growing 25-40 million worldwide subscribers to buy a CFB package at $100 annually, then that is $1 billion—is that the difference in how they can pay more than linear and streaming ESPN/ESPN+. Or, is Apple willing to lose money to grow their subscription base with this deal—making it a good long-term play?

A loss in a CFB deal is peanuts in Apple’s $394 billion annual revenue stream.
 
Last edited:
Eight

Eight

Member
This Ain't Chopped Liver said:
@Gary's Shirtless Revenge
I see numbers of 25-40 million worldwide Apple TV+ subscribers. I don’t understand how Apple can pay close to equal what a linear broadcaster can. I see a number of 76 million ESPN subscribers in the United States alone (down from about 100 million ten years ago). Is Apple more streamlined/efficient than maybe an obese ESPN? Or is ESPN/FOX not paying fair value with the 10s of millions more domestic viewers they have?

If Apple gets a very optimistic 10 million of its 25-40 million worldwide subscribers to buy a CFB package at $100 annually, then that is $1 billion—is that the difference in how they can exceed, match or nearly match linear ESPN, along with advertising dollar income? Or, is Apple willing to lose money to grow their subscription base with this deal—making it a good long-term play?
Click to expand...

at the end of 4th quarter 2022, apple was sitting on over 50B in cash
 
Limey Frog

Limey Frog

Full Member
Eight said:
at the end of 4th quarter 2022, apple was sitting on over 50B in cash
Click to expand...
My sources inform me that they've done fairly well from iPhones. I think they can afford to sink a few million $ into a TV platform that loses cash on the front end.
 
Last edited:
Gary's Shirtless Revenge

Gary's Shirtless Revenge

Full Member
This Ain't Chopped Liver said:
@Gary's Shirtless Revenge
I see numbers of 25-40 million worldwide Apple TV+ subscribers, and assume many or most are not CFB fans. I wonder how Apple decides they can pay the PAC equal or more than linear and streaming ESPN/ESPN+ is willing to pay. I see a number of 74 million linear ESPN subscribers in the United States alone (down from about 100 million ten years ago). Streaming ESPN+ has a rapidly growing 25 million U.S. subscribers. Will Apple be more efficient than maybe an obese ESPN? Is ESPN/FOX not paying fair value considering ESPN/ESPN+ has 60+ million more domestic subscribers (2.5 - 4 times more) than Apple?

If Apple gets a very optimistic 10 million of its growing 25-40 million worldwide subscribers to buy a CFB package at $100 annually, then that is $1 billion—is that the difference in how they can pay more than linear and streaming ESPN/ESPN+. Or, is Apple willing to lose money to grow their subscription base with this deal—making it a good long-term play?

A loss in a CFB deal is peanuts in Apple’s $394 billion annual revenue stream.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what their monetization strategy would be, I’d guess it’s based on long term customer value estimates, and the honest answer is probably nested into that last sentence of yours.
 

Latest posts

Top