Tandaian No. 1 Share Posted November 8, 2022 I'm not sure what Dodd was trying to express with this article. I don't think he came to any real conclusion. However, I guess he is trying to ask should the Pac-12 follow the money or visibility? Young people don't do normal TV. Neither of my kids (12 & 14) go out of their way to watch normal TV. People who want to watch college football will. If we are talking about 1-3 million extra per school, I can see not going the Amazon route. If we are talking more than that, then it makes sense to go with Amazon. If you are playing good football or basketball, you will be put on normal TV. If you don't have money to keep up with the other leagues, your teams are likely to be bad and nobody will want to watch anyway. Pac-12 should be concerned about visibility, not value compared to Big 12 as new media rights deal nears - CBSSports.com WWW.CBSSPORTS.COM Plus, a look at whether further expansion is coming to the Big Ten, Big 12 and/or Pac-12 If there is a big enough difference in money, I go with adding Amazon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2002duck No. 2 Share Posted November 9, 2022 (edited) I don't know if I'm "old" but I'm not young either. I still pay for cable (Xfinity), and I have Prime, Netflix, HBO, and Peacock. The only time I watch streamed sports games is for Thursday Night Football, and it's annoying because I prefer to channel surf to other sports games- especially during commercials. When the Ducks are up 30 points on the Huskies, for example, I like to hit the back button on my Xfinity remote, and I can watch all the other games in a split second. With streaming it's annoying having to hit the home button. If your game isn't the marquee game, you'll have to search for it when going back into the app. My vote is tier one and maybe tier two rights to go to cable/network TV. Hopefully the Ducks go to the B1G soon, and none of this matters. Edited November 9, 2022 by 2002duck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noDucknewby No. 3 Share Posted November 9, 2022 I generally disregard anything coming from Dennis Dodd. He never has anything positive to say about the Pac-12. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feathers No. 4 Share Posted November 9, 2022 I am age 83, with xfinity cable. I record as many as 10 college football games every Saturday. Almost every game I care to see is somewhere on cable, and I can locate it days before with a voice inquiry. On PAC-12 network, if I miss a PAC-12 game I watch the condensed 60 minute version the following week. I have enough experience with Amazon Prime and other streaming services to believe that they will not provide the best college football live and recording experience available on cable. Yes cable costs more, but I believe streaming is going to recover all of the money they will pay college athletic departments from the viewers eventually. I think Cable is our best option here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Ducky No. 5 Share Posted November 9, 2022 Some day advancing technology will take over what we watch and how we watch it. Signing long term contracts for quick dollars may not be the best path. I think we all know things are changing faster than we probably want. I may not be around long enough to see it or will it happen tomorrow no one really knows. But one thing is for sure. It’s coming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noDucknewby No. 6 Share Posted November 9, 2022 I've watched a couple of the NFL Prime streaming broadcasts, their quality is top-notch (of course if your internet bandwidth sucks then so does your feed). It's the future, for the Pac-12 the question is when and how deep do we want to get in with this contract. I don't give Dodd's numbers any credence whatsoever, but I do agree we have a lot of things working against us for linear broadcast rights. ESPN is likely the only serious bidder, Fox is tapped out with the B1G and B12 contracts. NBC is all in with the Domers, so that only leaves CBS as a substantial potential bidder against ESPN. Personally I would rather see Pac-12 games streamed during midday or prime time slots than a whole bunch of night broadcasts on ESPN that nobody outside of the west coast bothers to watch anyway. Choosing streaming money or exposure is a false choice IMHO. Anybody with an internet connection could watch Pac-12 streamed games, we don't know how many actually will, but we already know the ESPN night games give us minimal exposure. Going all in with Amazon would probably be a mistake at this time, but as a deep-pocketed second bidder it seems like a no-brainer to me especially since we can throw in Pac-12 Network production. GK says he is confident we can beat the B12's deal, I'm inclined to believe him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noDucknewby No. 7 Share Posted November 9, 2022 Just saw the headline (not an O-Live subscriber), either Oregon-Utah or USC-UCLA will be in the ESPN 7:30 night slot. So much for exposure. Bring on Amazon! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic No. 8 Share Posted November 9, 2022 Something has to change for those of us who live so remotely that cable tv is not an option. This weekend's game is on Fox once again, like the UCLA game. This means either I'll be out at Autzen with a friend that has season tickets or in town (25 miles away) to see the game at a pub. Yes, I know I could stream Fubo TV but I'm already streaming Prime, Sling Orange & Blue, Acorn, and Peacock. How many services can a person keep streaming (and keep track of) before they call it Enuf? I'm almost there now. If Amazon can solve this then perhaps I'll have a better option than streaming every service out there just to see 12 games a year of my favorite team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
