Details of pithy final Pac-12 offers from CBS, ESPN, Fox emerge
The Pac-12 did receive final offers from CBS, ESPN, and Fox this summer, but none were even close to the deal with Apple.
awfulannouncing.com
Pac 12 best and final offer on media
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
awfulannouncing.com
I'm hoping the resistance against streaming sports continues. Personally I stream movies and shows all the time but prefer regular TV for live sports. It just works better and makes it easier to jump back and forth between games.
I think we have to remember that, just as when ESPN tried to destroy the Big East, the networks are in “self fulfilling prophecy “ mode…and want to incent the best deal…. For them. So…by “low balling” The Pac12 they are in essence fulfilling the prophecy of 4 mega (football) conferences.Details of pithy final Pac-12 offers from CBS, ESPN, Fox emerge
The Pac-12 did receive final offers from CBS, ESPN, and Fox this summer, but none were even close to the deal with Apple.
It’s always about Mega greed.
Though in this case…the conferences were more than willing participants.. wink
Cable is what’s creating the great divide between the have and the have nots. The reason BigTen/SEC schools are getting $50m a year is because of cable. If we want any sort of parity it needs to go to a streaming platform. For example, every optimum subscriber has the SEC network. The overwhelming majority have never turned it on even tho they pay the SEC every month for it. If those same people cut the cord SEC loses all that revenue.
Cable = streaming.
I think the delivery mechanism matters not; anyone driving revenue to the schools/conferences is what matters.
Whether that’s what were called “over the air” networks, cable…or streaming services is irrelevant.
Maybe.
To piggy back off Sobo's point, ESPN reportedly receives about $9 a subscriber from its cable carriers. Each of the 70-75 million homes that ESPN can reach through those carriers pays that fee whether they watch one of the ESPN channels 24/7 or never watches any of them.
If (when) ESPN goes to an all-streaming model -- and if they lose 2/3 of that subscriber base in the process -- they would have to charge $30 a month to clear the same amount of revenue. That price point will probably cause a further loss of subs and thus revenue.
If/when the revenue decreases enough rights fees will likely necessarily decrease as well.
To this point, sports have been the one aspect of broadcasting that has weathered the increasing amount of competition for people's attention on television. As long as that holds, everybody's fine.
Who knows how streaming will develop down the line. In its current form streaming does not equal cable. That’s why everyone is anxiously awaiting 2030 to see what happens with the BigTen.
Look at the way ESPN is slashing expenses left and right. More than 60% of cable subscribers are 68 years or older. More people are cutting the cord each year and consuming tv in new ways that don’t include espn/btn/secn/etc.
Look at the way ESPN is slashing expenses left and right. More than 60% of cable subscribers are 68 years or older. More people are cutting the cord each year and consuming tv in new ways that don’t include espn/btn/secn/etc.
If you are saying that Revenue overall for sports stations will decline and then therefore revenue to the schools will follow, I might agree with that.
My Point was simply that as long as there is someone willing to pay, this madness will go on.
Why espn has cut back...mortaged the future on valuation of rights agreements that was inflated...no longer have coax signal in 100M homes.
Canzano: 'The gun was empty': The downfall of the Pac-12 Conference
A tale of hubris, bad leadership and hollow promises.
www.johncanzano.com
Good article. Reminds me of the old Big East and their negotiations with ESPN. It had an offer from ESPN that was decent, but Paul Taglibue told the conference there was a much better deal around the corner.Canzano: 'The gun was empty': The downfall of the Pac-12 Conference
A tale of hubris, bad leadership and hollow promises.
To your point, perhaps the better way to frame it is: bundle (traditional cable model where you get many different channels) vs. non-bundle (where you get one provider’s content). For example, YouTube TV is technically “streaming” but is more akin to the traditional cable package where you get many different channels.
