Supposed Apple+ TV Contract Offer to the PAC

[Tandaian]

From Stewart Mandel and The Athletic

According to three people with knowledge of the terms, Apple offered the members a five-year deal with an annual base rate of $23 million per school (a subsequent counteroffer lifted it to $25 million), with incentives based on projected subscribers to a Pac-12 streaming product akin to Apple’s MLS League Pass.

 

At 1.7 million subscribers, the per-school payout would match the $31.7 million average that Big 12 schools will reportedly receive from ESPN and Fox beginning in 2025. But Kliavkoff encouraged the room to think much bigger — at 5 million subscribers, the schools would eclipse $50 million per year, closer to the deep-pocketed SEC and Big Ten than the ACC or Big 12.

 

The MLS season pass, barely has 1 million subscribers.  I think college football is bigger than MLS, but why should a conference be under the whims of subscribers?

 

By using the term think bigger, it had the Presidents thinking of Larry Scott and his Pac 12 Network, think bigger.  The PAC did think bigger and it was the beginning of the end of the PAC.

[Cacker Guy]

I think 1.7 million subscribers is reasonable, which would have brought the PAC deal in almost $2M better than the B1G deal.  I think I get why the presidents balked, but I wish they would have tried it.  It is also reported that there was an opt out after 3 (or maybe 2) years. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Cacker Guy

[Haywarduck]

I would say they made another bad decision, like sticking with Larry for over 10 years.

 

We are stuck with this decision for only 6 years, so it can't be Larry bad, can it?

 

If history teaches us anything, the presidents didn't make the best choice, but we can live with it, and will thrive either way.

[jrw]

MLS season pass covers teams and subscribers nationwide, including most of the major markets. If it can garner only 1 million subscribers (I'm one of them) I don't think the PAC, without the L.A. schools, could have hoped for many more. But, who knows?

[Steven A]

I think 1.7 was pie-in-the-sky.  I also think MLS at 1 mil would be larger than a Pac 12 audience.

 

Besides, now we know we have really pissed off the sc fan base by:

 

1)  being in the same league = same recruits

2)  having 1 game a year in LA area (of course they benefit for being in Eugene once every two years to see a real college town).  Maybe we can open our facilities to all visiting teams and poach a few.

3)  not having lost to Tulane

[Cacker Guy]

On 8/7/2023 at 3:59 PM, Steven A said:

I think 1.7 was pie-in-the-sky.

From an article in Duckwire (I also saw these numbers somewhere else but I can't find it).

 

Average viewers per week in 2022:

 

Oregon 2.21 M

Utah 1.16 M

UW  1.15 M

WSU 907 K

Cal 857 K

Stanford 846 K

OSU  625 K

Arizona 506 K

ASU 314 K

 

That adds to just under 8.6 M viewers per week.  That doesn't mean 8.6 M would subscribe, but I would...

[Dave23]

Want to know why Apple has more cash than any other corporation, because they never make deals that aren't in their favor. If that was the best the PAC could come up with then I guess it was inevitable Oregon was going to bounce.

 

Amazon was the only real streaming only option in my opinion. They spend cash with just a little more reckless abandonment we just caught them in a bad time.

[2002duck]

On 8/7/2023 at 3:16 PM, Tandaian said:

At 1.7 million subscribers

Zero point zero chance that 1.7M people would pay $100 for the Apple TV + Pac 10 package.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by 2002duck

[David Marsh]

On 8/7/2023 at 5:01 PM, 2002duck said:

Zero point zero chance that 1.7M people would pay $100 for the Apple TV + Pac 10 package.

Don't you mean $10? I think they could get a few million subs to be honest. Every die hard fan would get it and that would probably get them to close to 13 mil (the pac-12 network number currently). 

 

But no visibility outside of hardcore fans. 

[HappyToBeADuck]

We could consider that it may have come down to linear exposure for the athletes. And what that exposure or lack of exposure would have done to future recruiting.

 

Maybe not think in terms of the money offered but in the terms of lost 4 and 5☆ recruits over a 6 year term.

 

As we are starting to hear, one of USC's reason for leaving was to gain a recruiting advantage in SoCal over the Ducks.

 

(Come to USC and you will be on national TV, virtually every game. Playing against some powerhouse schools, CFP appearances and not looking for your family and friends to buy a streaming subscription.)

 

If OBD's lost 1 to 2 blue chippers, each year, over a 6 year period that would be a significant reduction in quality and depth.

 

They wouldnt have all gone to usuck but our dominance over usuck could have been diminshed. 

 

Also, if streaming becomes the dominant number, FOX will move more content into streaming.

 

I cannot stress the importance of being a part of a conference and network that will be a dominant player going forward.

 

The money will not be a concern going forward in the BIG. Our Ducks will be on national tv and with some better kick off times.

 

What's more important than the money is being able to compete and win against 17 other BIG Conference teams.  Some, whose squads are in the Top 5.

 

Winning the BIG, making the CFP and winning a Natty takes TOP 5 recruiting classes. Year in and year out. Nothing but 4 and 5☆ athletes that fill DL's vision.

 

I ask the Forum which direction will lead us there?

 

Playing and winning on National TV against tOSU, UM, PSU, usc, IOWA, WHISKY, MSU, ucla and UW.

 

Or streaming games, that viewership numbers are not certain, against Stanford, WSU etc?

 

This FOX/BIG deal was done a few weeks back as a contingent plan. It happened too fast to not have the leg work done.

 

Love this Forum but i for one want to look forward and not backwards.

 

GO DUCKS.......

[Cacker Guy]

On 8/7/2023 at 5:37 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

We could consider that it may have come down to linear exposure for the athletes. And what that exposure or lack of exposure would have done to future recruiting.

I think you are right, Happy.  The numbers just don't cry out that the B1G was a better deal financially -- at least for the duration of the current media deal.  Plus didn't Colorado use the lack of linear partners as their reason for leaving?

[Charles Fischer]

I am not a fan of Colin Cowherd, but he did correctly state recently that college football has a lack of big games.  Most of the Pac-12 games did not move the needle beyond their own fans.

 

But now, on a given weekend you will have a TON of big games in the B1G; picture Washington at Michigan, Penn State at Oregon, Ohio State at USC, and UCLA at that killer stadium in Wisconsin?  These are big games that are compelling, and our four former Pac-12 teams really help create that interest. The synergy between the B1G and the four new teams is something you can sense already.

 

I have heard from tons of people that "going to a game at Autzen is on my bucket list."  Well, we might just have a seat for you soon!

 

[Lrod]

On 8/7/2023 at 7:19 PM, Cacker Guy said:

From an article in Duckwire (I also saw these numbers somewhere else but I can't find it).

 

Average viewers per week in 2022:

 

Oregon 2.21 M

Utah 1.16 M

UW  1.15 M

WSU 907 K

Cal 857 K

Stanford 846 K

OSU  625 K

Arizona 506 K

ASU 314 K

 

That adds to just under 8.6 M viewers per week.  That doesn't mean 8.6 M would subscribe, but I would...

I, like many would have not subscribed.  I can watch all these games for free on bootleg sites across the internet.  This is 2023.  You can get content for free.  This why a streaming deal wouldnt have worked

[2002duck]

On 8/7/2023 at 6:06 PM, Lrod said:

You can get content for free.

This is why I do not put any stock into streaming sports at this time. In fact, I think the entire Hollywood business market is a disaster right now- streaming simply is not profitable. 

 

Platforms must show advertisements. And preferably ones from Fortune 500 companies like McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi, Toyota, Frito-Lay, Budweiser, and Coors. That's where the money comes from.

 

Do everything possible to make people watch ads on every single platform, and make it so you can't skip them. If Americans want their entertainment to be cheap (read: subsidized), then they need give up on feeling entitled to not watch ads. 

 

I know what you're thinking: "this guy is crazy, is he saying he wants to force Americans to watch ads?" 

 

Yes!

[2002duck]

On 8/7/2023 at 3:58 PM, jrw said:

MLS season pass covers teams and subscribers nationwide, including most of the major markets. If it can garner only 1 million subscribers

Well, first of all, about 500k of Apple's MLS subscribers get it for free. Also, their numbers grew to about 1M after Messi came. The Pac does not have a Messi, and Apple was not going to give free Pac packages to season ticket holders at all of the schools.

 

> 

How will I receive my MLS Season Pass?

The Full-Season Ticket Account Owner will receive their free MLS Season Pass and redemption instructions via email from their Club on or around February 1, 2023. If you have not received your MLS Season Pass, please contact your Club Representative.

 

Can I share my MLS Season Pass subscription with family members?

Yes, you can share your MLS Season Pass subscription with up to 5 family members by setting up Family Sharing on your Apple device.

Edited August 8, 2023 by 2002duck

[PuddleDuck]

Another angle to this, is that Apple blew it.  If they had thrown in another 50m in guaranteed money they would have owned the West Coast college sports market. (Outside of LA)

 

Streaming is where all TV is headed and Apple could have led the way in Sports.

 

I know it’s not a popular opinion, but some of the innovation they were proposing sounds like it could have been really popular with student athletes, which would have been a boon to recruiting.  Remember when the old traditionalists hated Oregon’s flashy uniforms? The athletes LOVED them, Oregon became a national brand and recruiting got a bit easier. It’s possible that this could have elevated the entire conference.

 

Apple should have thrown down an extra week worth of IPhone profits and  been the first into streaming college sports.

 

I think it’s better than even odds it would have panned out, but Apple didn’t put up the cash to find out. There are lots of losers in the Pac breaking up, but Apple whiffed too.

[The Kamikaze Kid]

On 8/8/2023 at 12:11 AM, PuddleDuck said:

Another angle to this, is that Apple blew it.

Great take. I think both Apple and Fox were watching the implosion of Disney/ ESPN and just thought they were competing against no one. Fox just sat back and waited for the Pac to fall apart then got UO and fuskies at bargain prices. Apple thought they could low ball the Pac because there was no competition because Fox was just sitting back waiting and ESPN is firing thousands of employees.

 

If Apple was serious, they would have made the offer even bigger than the B12 offer rewarding the Pac for being a guinea pig in the streaming world. Also the Pac presidents failed to even check in on negotiations the entire time and find out that GK was failing miserably but they were fine with being blown a bunch of smoke about how well everything was going.

[Tandaian]

I think if Apple offers the PAC between $30 - $31.7 mil as base and doesn't start offering incentives until after 1.7 mil, the PAC would have taken it.

[Tandaian]

The PAC subscription could come separate from Apple.  MLS can be separate or is discounted $5 per month with an Apple subscription.  It likely would have been $15 a month on its own.

[David Marsh]

On 8/8/2023 at 7:34 AM, The Kamikaze Kid said:

Fox just sat back and waited for the Pac to fall apart then got UO and fuskies at bargain prices.

I don't think Fox sat back for a second. I think they were actively encouraging the Big 12 to go after the Pac-12.

 

They had a pillaging clause in their media deal!