What if the Pac-12 Went ALL-Streaming? Could You Live With It?

[Charles Fischer]

HappyToBeADuck brought up a super-interesting point in another thread; what if Amazon or Apple go crazy and give the Pac-12 a colossal contract, like 50 million a year climbing to 100 million a year over seven years?  This would match what we thought we would get by joining the B1G, and thus we could stand pat.

 

Yet 60% of those who watch on TV do so through the cable sources, and we would lose a chunk of them? My TV is 10 years old, but I am able to watch stuff streaming as I did on the Pac-12 Network site for the away Oregon Baseball games.

 

Yet TONS of people around the world could now see all the Oregon games via streaming.  And we would be just as flush as the B1G, and yet save the Pac-12--would you be willing to pony up just nine bucks a month during football season to watch Oregon football on your computer, or get a TV that has that capacity?

 

Season tickets for me (grandfathered with donation) cost me $1,800 a year, so $9.00 a month for five months is nothing...and I would consider it worthwhile to help Our Beloved Ducks.

 

How do YOU feel about that possibility?

 

[Log Haulin]

Amazon prime is on how many phones, tablets and laptops around the world? I watch college football on my 75" Samsung Qled. Also has Pime. 

 

I love this option. The networks could care less about Pac, ACC or Big12. Why should we care about them.

 

I say flip the dominance of espn and fox money dictating college football. Prime has huge power eclipsing every network out there.

 

At the end of the day it's still about the money, I get it. But the networks are flexing hard. Would love to see others flex back

[David Marsh]

Only reason I have cable right now is FOR Oregon games. I am looking at finding alternatives after this season because I know I am generally wasting money. 

 

I would be fine if it was all streaming. 

[Mudslide]

Two answers. 

 

No.  And absolutely not. 

[Steven A]

I'll check with my grandkids to see what they would charge to tutor me to be able to watch AND if the money was right (both for the Ducks and the kids didn't screw me over too much) heck yes.

[Charles Fischer]

On 9/19/2022 at 11:52 AM, Mudslide said:

Two answers. 

 

No.  And absolutely not. 

C'mon...tell us why?  I am curious as many might be....  (I'm in a pondering mood today...)

[nw777b]

Streaming is the future. 

 

As Log Haulin pointed out, it widens the number of devices that can be used and the internet service provider might be easier to replace in some areas.

 

Imagine all start times are ON time because each game is it's own stream. You don't have to wait for and watch the end of a blowout AND commentary prior to the game YOU want to see. (ESPN might let you see 5 minutes of the 1st qtr).

 

The service should archive the game ( think YouTube), so if you are late or miss it entirely,  you can start from the beginning, rewind, fast forward. Don't be surprised if Google doesn't enter the mix.

 

YouTube would be my favored platform...even with ads.

 

Oregon should negotiate their own contract. "The Nike channel on YouTube featuring Oregon Duck Sports"!

[Krsmqn]

Streaming is the future. I ditched cable a few years back, and haven't looked back. I don't miss any games I care about. 

 

Since I'm already a prime member, and have a smart devices in every room of my house, I'm all in on this idea. 

 

I agree with Log Haulin. Prime Video (as it's called now) would reach millions more folks than the old P12 deal ever did. It'd give folks the ability to see every P12 game/event, and probably bolster the production value, as well (hopefully). 

 

Anyone ever watch Top Gear? That show was huge, because of streaming. Well now those guys are over on Amazon, rebranded, with a much bigger budget, and their show is great! Plus, it reaches many more people than the old show ever did. 

 

Streaming is the future. And I've got a front row seat. 

 

Go Ducks!

[noDucknewby]

Only downside I see is not having access to the ESPN hype machine.  Personally I can't stand the amount of power and influence they have in the sport, but that's the world of college football and they ain't going away.

 

I've been looking for an excuse to cut the cord for years, all I really watch on cable is local news and live sports.  I stream everything else and I guess I can survive without Jeopardy.

Edited September 19, 2022 by noDucknewby

[Mic]

Because of where I live, cable is not an option, never has been. I'm only marginal when it comes to streaming expertise.  For many years, it was Live at Autzen or the nearest pub or pizza parlor. (+30 miles).  I'm just now learning how to stream and I'm finding it difficult to find the games I want on all the different streaming services (without having to subscribe to a multitude of them).

 

So, short answer: No.  Not yet.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Mic

[DimpleDucks]

I'd be fine with streaming. I cut cable and got a Roku player for about $25 at Walmart. When I signed up for YouTube TV, I got 3 free weeks and then the next 3 months with a discount--$55 a month and then it bumps up to $65. This is much less than cable and most conferences are on it along with all the Fox and ESPN stations plus a lot of pro games and other assorted fare. Considering both cable and game tickets, the price is right. You can also record the games and keep them on an online library.

 

As for Amazon Prime, I'd probably do it for football season and then cancel because I think YouTube TV is more versatile. 

[Annie]

No. Don't have a clue about it and no grandchildren to show me.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Annie

[Tandaian]

If Amazon gave the Pac 12 crazy money, I don't have a problem going 100% streaming.  Streaming means you could have all Pac 12 teams playing at the same time and every fan of a Pac 12 school could watch their team play and not worry about ESPN/Fox choosing which game will have the highest TV rating.

 

The people who care/matter about college football will watch the game no matter how the game is shown.

 

If you have cable/satellite, then you can stream.  There have been some arguments about rural area having problems seeing games.  90% of games are on ESPN or Fox Sports, so there already is limited games in rural areas.  Streaming isn't going to dramatically reduce viewership.

[Autzen]

I still think cable or satellite is still the best for sports... The reason for me is:

 

1. Lag - if your internet connection isn't great lag can be very painful. I have friends that stream games and their ESPN apps always go off before they see what's happening on the screen. Although with anything, streaming WILL get better.

 

2. Bars around the country. It would be really costly for every bar in the country to beef up their internal network to support streaming. They'd need a lot of devices to run the streaming services. 

 

Streaming is great for on demand movies and TV shows. But I think for sports (right now) cable and satellite is more convenient. 

[Mudslide]

On 9/19/2022 at 12:02 PM, Charles Fischer said:

C'mon...tell us why?  I am curious as many might be....  (I'm in a pondering mood today...)

There are just so many reasons particular to our situation...cost, poor audio/video streaming resolution, Annie's answer,  I detest Amazon, I have no Apple devices nor intend to own any, etc. etc....as well as the fact that I think viewership will be WAY down AND Amazon has no decent experience covering sports.

 

But then, as my favorite t-shirt says...."I don't know what I'm doing, and you can't make me stop!" 

[Dave23]

Yes please

 

Just think of the amount of recruits east of the Mississippi that would actually get to see the game. Right now they can't watch it if they want to unless it's a big game on Fox or ESPN.

 

The Pac12 network deal has been more detrimental to the pac-12 than just about anything considering it's not available on cable and only Dish Network in most the country.

[HappyToBeADuck]

When one of my 20 grandkids mentioned that NFL Thursday Night football was exclusive to Amazon Prime, I told him that would be 16 games i wouldnt see. He told me it would be easy to get. 

 

Fear, trepidation and panic set in. My sweet wife told me to quit my sniveling and whining because for $100 a year she had Prime. I wasnt convinced.

 

On Thursday, at game time my wife came downstairs to the living room, handed me the remote. She said, push the talk button and say Amazon Prime sports Thursday Night NFL Football. I did and 20 seconds later i clicked the icon for the game. 10 seconds later NFL football.

 

It was easy. It will be easy for all of you. My grandson called moments later to have my 6 year old great granddaughter help me navigate the process. He congratulated me that i was already watching the game. Another 4 grand kids called thru the night to congratulate my success.

 

OBDF members Amazon paid MLS like 2.5 billion for games. This is big time dollars. Amazon wants content. They have a year round, ready made studio cast, pregame and game announcers with 9 months of PAC10 sports to gobble up and show. They dont have to worry about TV sets. They want purchasing customers in ALL markets to sell their brokered goods to. This can fix the PACs pitiful distribution numbers.

 

PS: They will view ESPN and Fox as competitors to the content they want. This could be another step in shaping media viewing as they want.

 

Gonna be very interesting.....

 

Double PS: Thanks to my sweet wife for loving me.

[Tandaian]

@Mudslide What are you referring to about not having apple devices?  My family doesn't own a single apple device either, but we can still stream.

 

100% understand not liking Amazon.

 

Unfortunately, when we are talking about sports, they rarely care about the older demographics.  They want to get people hooked when they are in their teens.  Anybody with kids, knows you need to have good internet at home.  Having a good internet connection is not an issue with the demographic they are trying to get.

 

Bars would pay an extra $50-$100 a month for better internet, it would be a drop in the bucket.  It is easier than you think to set up 10-20 TVs.  It doesn't take as many devices as you think.

[SmithRiverDuck]

Did anyone watch the NFL game on Prime last week?  I had it on in our pub for the customers. 

 

The picture was HORRIBLE!  Watching it on a standard definition channel would have been much preferable.

 

The sound and picture never was in alignment. 

 

The announcers would say what was going on and then several seconds later you could (sort of) see it happening.

 

So unless Amazon can produce a high def picture that matches up with the sound I'm a big fat no.

[DimpleDucks]

On 9/19/2022 at 1:47 PM, SmithRiverDuck said:

Did anyone watch the NFL game on Prime last week?  I had it on in our pub for the customers. 

 

The picture was HORRIBLE!  Watching it on a standard definition channel would have been much preferable.

 

The sound and picture never was in alignment. 

 

The announcers would say what was going on and then several seconds later you could (sort of) see it happening.

 

So unless Amazon can produce a high def picture that matches up with the sound I'm a big fat no.

Yes, I watched the Chargers game on Prime and didn't have any problems. Well, except that Herby just talks and talks and talks these days! 

[Kurt Rambis]

Oh, HELL YES!!!

 

Living overseas, there's basically no way to watch the NFL without streaming.  I share a subscription to NFL Game Pass with my niece and her husband - can watch any NFL game live, or see the whole thing after the fact without commercials, or even watch a 40-minute telescoped version of the game.  Plus I can watch previous Super Bowls, classic games, NFL shows, or anything else they have on there, commercial free.

 

Would freaking LOVE to do the same thing with the Ducks, with Pepperdine basketball, etc.

 

As for the "I'm too old to do this" issue, I simply refuse to let that stop me.  If I can't understand something the first time, I'll study it or ask someone who knows what they're doing.  We have cable for my elderly MIL who lives with us, but I haven't watched it in two years - everything is Netflix or Disney+.  No ads, can watch it whenever I want (not whenever the network programs it), can pause it, rewind to catch something I missed, etc.  It's just a much better way to watch TV.

 

Now Prime specifically is a bit of a hassle, because we can't get most of the programming in Europe - but that's why smart people invented VPN and Apple Air Play!

[DimpleDucks]

On 9/19/2022 at 2:06 PM, Kurt Rambis said:

 

 

As for the "I'm too old to do this" issue, I simply refuse to let that stop me. 

Yeah, streaming isn't hard. You can hunt on Youtube for just about any 'how to', or just type a question in your search engine and come up with a million suggestions for whatever it is you need.

[nw777b]

We live in the woods.

 

Our internet throughput is 15 mbps up and down. The signal shoots over a mile across a lake back and forth multiple times before it hits fiber.

 

I depend on it for work to screenshare for remote software training all day. (Teams, Zoom, WebEx)

 

We can use Verizon and Cricket mobile data as a backup. We have no dish service.

 

Streaming YouTube and shows/movies works great! They typically only need about 2mpbs down.

 

Amazon was great until the end of the first qtr. The Español stream was better. I attribute the audio and video issues on Amazon not having the technology in place to handle high usage and slower throughput users. YouTube, Fubo, Sling are better for now in that regard. But those with high throughput seemed to fair nicely.

 

I'm sold on the future of streaming, even for rural users like us.

[Smith72]

I do most of my shopping on Amazon Prime.  Save a ton of gas money with free shipping!  I watch a lot of movies and tv shows on Amazon and Netflix.

 

I watched the Thursday night game Chargers and Chiefs on Amazon Prime Video.  Picture and audio was perfect.  Everything was as good as or better than my Xfinity cable network showing ESPN, or Fox, ABC, NBC.

 

Amazon wants to dominate sports broadcasting for the western part of our country.  Amazon has a lot of money ($456 B revenue per year). 

 

I would love to keep the Pac-12 conference together without teams traveling coast to coast. Call me a traditionalist.

[GeotechDuck]

The way I look at it there are two choices for the Pac-10:

 

Option 1: Take the estimated $300M/year from ESPN and accept that PAC schools are getting less than 1/2 the revenue of BIG and SEC schools.  This is a HUGE issue and will continue to widen the gap between the BIG/SEC and PAC, especially when players start sharing revenue. Option1 creates a situation where the Pac dies a slow death and eventually becomes irrelevant in 3-5 years.  I don't even view this as a realistic option at this point. 

     

Option 2: Sell content to a streaming service like AWS or Apple. They want in on sports and there is a chance they might be willing to pay up to get content.  AWS just paid $1B for a year's worth of Thursday night NFL football games, so we know they are willing to throw money at sports.  Option2 has a ton of risk, but if a large portion of the population switches to streaming over the next 5 years, it might just work out and save the conference. 

 

If AWS or Apple offers north of $400M, I think you take that deal tomorrow and just go all in and hope it works out.  Is there really another option with a long term chance of saving the conference?

 

You get the playoff berth either way, so might as well roll the dice and see what happens. 

 

 

[Charles Fischer]

On 9/19/2022 at 2:37 PM, GeotechDuck said:

Is there really another option with a long term chance of saving the conference?

There are two other major components in this that can save the conference in my view.  First is the new 12 team playoff that could be worth two billion among the competitors. One game could garner 50 million for one team alone, thus these are huge revenue boosters for athletic departments, even if they are viewed as a massive bonus in some years.

 

The other one is the Pac-12 considering rewarding the winners; those who qualify for the NCAA basketball Tournament and CFB Playoffs do not get 1/12th of the revenue but HALF, with the rest split 11 ways. This will keep Oregon/Washington happy and preserve the conference.

 

After all the concerns we had two months ago--we might be alright!

[Mic]

On 9/19/2022 at 1:33 PM, Dave23 said:

The Pac12 network deal has been more detrimental to the pac-12 than just about anything considering it's not available on cable and only Dish Network in most the country.

You could be correct, but the original intent of the Pac-12 network (Big-10, etc.) was to get as many conference games on TV as possible.  Even the conference bottom-dwellers from each season deserve to be televised for their fan base.  If it's not lived up to it's original intent, at least it was a try.

 

(btw, Pac-12 Network is available on Sling Orange)

[Mudslide]

On 9/19/2022 at 1:46 PM, Tandaian said:

@Mudslide What are you referring to about not having apple devices?  My family doesn't own a single apple device either, but we can still stream.

 

 

My reference was to Charles' question regarding "Amazon or Apple".  (I hate Apple too.)  Yes, we can stream, too.  But like many others, I live in a more rural environment.  Our DSL download speed here is super limited.  I can't get any video to play without start-stops all along the way.  There are too many homes on our CenturyLink optical cable node. That is no way to watch my Ducks.

[Pennsylvania Duck]

I don't mind streaming, but is that going to grow the PAC-12? I don't believe that is. I feel it is no different that the PAC-12 networks now.

 

I think other conferences have grown in value because their games can be seen on FOX, ESPN, CBS Sports, NBC Sports channels.

 

Regular media access, along with streaming is the future. I think the conference will be stymied financially again going just the streaming route. 

 

Games must be easily accessible to everyone, including those who are not UO people but want to watch a good game,  for growth to take place

[GeotechDuck]

On 9/19/2022 at 2:45 PM, Charles Fischer said:

There are two other major components in this that can save the conference in my view.  First is the new 12 team playoff that could be worth two billion among the competitors. One game could garner 50 million for one team alone, thus these are huge revenue boosters for athletic departments, even if they are viewed as a massive bonus in some years.

 

The other one is the Pac-12 considering rewarding the winners; those who qualify for the NCAA basketball and Playoffs do not get 1/12th of the revenue but HALF, with the rest split 11 ways. This will keep Oregon/Washington happy and preserve the conference.

 

After all the concerns we had two months ago--we might be alright!

Nice!  I had not seen that angle before, but that seems like another good option for saving the PAC.  I really want Oregon to stay in the PAC, if possible.  The thought of flying across the country to play Purdue, Rutgers, or Northwestern in November is just.......BARF!

 

[NJDuck]

I have Amazon prime now.  I also stream everything.  I do not miss any games and can record all my games.  I have Amazon Prime and Fubo.tv on my big screen TV now.  I can also watch it on my phone and computer.  If Pac-12 goes streaming Apple TV instead of Amazon I can watch that as well.

 

I am in favor of it if they would give Pac-12 schools that kind of money per school.  Right now Pac-12 is looking pretty good out of conference games record.

 

Great media rights package, check.  Conference re-alignment inviting the right schools into the Pac-12, check.  Strong teams in football and possibly basketball, check.  Twelve Team playoff, check.  Great combination for a strong Pac-12 conference!  

 

Even a combination partnering with Amazon and ESPN if it favors to go that route.  Especially if we could get some games pitting Pac-12 vs ACC utilizing the new stadiums in the Las Vegas/Las Angeles area.  Plus a couple of stadiums in ACC country.

 

[Mic]

On 9/19/2022 at 11:30 AM, Charles Fischer said:

How do YOU feel about that possibility?

 

Looking back at my earlier response to the question: "Could you live with that?"  I guess I would amend that and say "yeah, if that's what it comes down to since cable isn't an option where we live."  What other choice would I have?  Satellite coverage has proved dismal due to mountains, trees and weather.  It's to town or streaming for us.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Mic

[nw777b]

On 9/19/2022 at 2:47 PM, Mudslide said:

There are too many homes on our CenturyLink optical cable node. That is no way to watch my Ducks.

That sucks, but that's 100% on CenturyLink. If it really is fiber optics, there is no excuse. 

[Coach Eric Boles]

It’s how I watch them now, so I’d be cool with it. A streamer could at least take the Pac-12 Network. I use Sling right now for it, but it’s like $50 a month after the add-on that you need for it. 

[Duckdude]

No.  I have a nice big screen TV, and couch.  It’s not a smart TV.  I don’t wanna watch a game on my iPad.  And……I don’t wanna buy a new TV.

[DrJacksPlaidPants]

Most households have internet, Smart TV’s, Roku, tablets, laptops, etc. The folks who will have problems are those who live in areas where the internet service is slow or sporadic. Some parts of my own neighborhood can’t get cable internet, so they have to use dish and really slow satellite internet because that’s all there is. Some people are starting to get Starlink, so it’s getting better.

Edited September 19, 2022 by DrJacksPlaidPants

[Pennsylvania Duck]

 

 

Whatever media deal is worked out, we need more PAC-12 games easily accessible at decent hours on the East Coast.

You're missing out on about 1/3 of the country population wise, which has a big impact on media numbers.

 

Watching a taped game after I already know the score the next day is not a fun game experience and I think many others feel the same.

I often wonder if that is why the PAC-12 gets a bad rap because so many people in some of the largest media markets fall asleep and don't care.

 

I love the Ducks but I dread these PAC-12 After Dark games and have never seen one to the end!

[Charles Fischer]

Wow.  With all the work I do after the game....I will be up into the wee hours of the AM.  Better get more sleep the day before!

 

[Dr Hilarius]

Streaming is the only option I have in LA to watch the Pac-12 Oregon channel. 

 

Spectrum only carries the Pac-12 LA channel.

 

Watching re-runs of USC gymnastics while the Ducks are playing football is infuriating. 

[Wood Duck]

I'd be disappointed, as I try to avoid amazon like the plague. It turns my stomach to think of giving bezos any of my money.

But unfortunately, sometimes its the only way.

[Pennsylvania Duck]

Even Oregon people have problems with late starts

 

[noDucknewby]

8:00 PM??? You've gotta be frickin' kidding me. If we joined the B1G this wouldn't happen. 

 

Not sure how the streaming schedule would work but if it means fewer night games then I'm all in.

[HappyToBeADuck]

Pennsylvania Duck, if Amazon inks a deal with the PAC they wont be doing it to just ink the PAC after dark games.

 

In the non conference schedule they would have a potential for 30 plus games, if PAC stays at 10 teams. This non con count could be expanded by going to 12-16 teams.

Expanding into the central time zone could create very favorable 10 am pst and 1 pm est kick offs.  Remember Amazon Prime already has subscribers that they WANT content for. Unlike the networks who must attract large Tv markets to get larger ad dollars

 

Consider that many on this Forum felt that ESPN, FOX, SEC and the BIG were creating a haves and have nots situation. And they would control it all. Proof of this is the pitiful offer ESPN gave the PAC. It was take it or leave it. Fox had nothing to offer the PAC because they gave it to the BIG. Once the PAC inks with ESPN most games will be 7:30 est and later.

 

Amazon wants to build a sports division. Bezos has stated he wants to dominate West Coast sports. The PAC and a few more added members could help make that happen. However, if Oregon and washington are the bell cows then their games will be centered around prime time eastern time zone.

[Just Ducky]

Isn’t anything better than what we have now? I’m tired of driving to a local pub to watch athletic events in the pack. Can get real expensive. 

[PittDuck]

I am absolutely for live streaming PAC 12 games.  I am quite frankly, fed up with ESPN and their BS. I have boycotted having cable tv for well over a decade.

I enjoy streaming NFL Thursday Night Football and have no lagging issues. I would live stream PAC 12 football (or basketball or track & field) in a heartbeat!

[Charles Fischer]

On 9/19/2022 at 6:37 PM, HappyToBeADuck said:

However, if Oregon and Washington are the bell cows then their games will be centered around prime time eastern time zone.

The thought of that....

 

[kirklandduck]

On 9/19/2022 at 4:33 PM, Duckdude said:

No.  I have a nice big screen TV, and couch.  It’s not a smart TV.  I don’t wanna watch a game on my iPad.  And……I don’t wanna buy a new TV.

You can buy a little Roku unit for your tv. Less than $30.

[kirklandduck]

I’ve already been streaming only for over a year now. No problem for me!

[Pocketchange]

If they provide multiple games and $$$ then give them the pac network now and call it a day.  Staying with the traditional providers will strangle the money out of the pac.  If I want a future for prime time Oregon football in the pac then it’s going to be on a streaming service.