For $5/mo, Peacock gives me the Premier League and every WWE PPV event. Twenty years ago, just one WWE event was $50.
ESPN+, Disney, and Hulu are now folded into my Verizon Wireless subscription. For $100/mo I get those three services plus 5G talk and text. Verizon also just gave me a year of Netflix for signing up for NBA League Pass for $79. Good God.
The MLS package became available on Apple TV yesterday for $14.99/mo. Third-tier soccer for 3x what NBC charges for the world's most popular soccer league (plus a WHOLE lot more).
To suggest we'll be paying double to stream five years from now seems...ambitious.
All this to say, I'll be very interested to see what a Pac-12 streaming package looks like.
1. I’m so irritated with Comcast right now, as the bill has gone up again, $215, which means another biennial phone call to play the shell game with them to get it reduced for 6 months, and then watch it increase several times over 18 months…and then call again. Hey, wait- are we consumer’s subsidizing the 50M?!
2. Ease in on the streaming.
3. Bigger payout for teams that play post season.
4. Hook SOCal schools for their full share of Comcast fiasco, and wait until 7/1/24 to sell PC12 network. You know why.
The gifts that Larry Scott keeps giving us are depressing. I blame the USC/UCLA and media situation on him. If the coference heads had any cajones they would sue him into bankruptcy. But they probably screwed that ability up too. Being an academic doesn't equate to being smart. As far as media at my man cave, I have had to spend $82 a month on FUBO so I can watch PAC12 sports. Which sucks. If Amazon were carrying it I could use my Prime membership. Personally, I wish Washington and Oregon would ask for more, after all, in this world it's every rat for them self. Why pretend differently. another great article John, thanks.
Why is the DMA the driving factor and not the number of eyeballs that watch a given team play? Rutgers is in a huge DMA but how many people watch Rutgers football? Same with Northwestern and viewers in the Chicago area. Oregon has a far bigger brand and is watched by far more people than any teams in the Pac-10 and in the B12 sans Oklahoma and Texas.
P5 CFB/CBB are big-time capitalist ventures. So why the even 'socialist' revenue split? I think the 'producers' in the Pac-10, Oregon, UW, Utah, and CU have every right to a bigger piece of the pie.
IMO revenue should be split based on capital spent on athletics, including coaching salaries and amortized facilities investment, viewers watching the money-ball sports, attendance at CFB/CBB games, and success on the field and court.
Law firms do not give every partner an equal piece of the revenue. The partners' who bring in the big clients and produce the largest billings get paid more money.
I see no reason why OR/UW should subsidize CAL/Stanford which may as well be in the Ivy League.
Now, the Oregon and UW brands are going to be beta sites for CFB streaming?
I think that AZ, ASU, CU, OR, Utah, and UW should be carving out a deal with the B12, ESPN, and FOX. A deal that keeps the teams on linear TV and with a premium paid for the Northwest schools to join.
Why go down with this ship? It may well be easier to make the CFB expanded playoff with the Pac-10 standing pat but why share the revenue with those who are not willing to spend the money to be competitive at the championship level.
On their own, the Pac-10, B 12, and ACC as currently constructed will not come within financial hailing distance of the B1G/SEC.
Great info! It’s fantastic having these numbers to compare. Wondering if Amazon gets all non-football/basketball sports exclusively, allowing for live stream of each event anytime. Basketball and football content split with a traditional partner. Amazon most likely wanting a weekly marquee Friday night conference matchup (cross advertise with Thursday NFL). ESPN+ takes a majority of basketball games, along with some on Amazon. Football mostly going ESPN and ESPN+, aside from the Amazon Friday games and maybe Saturday mornings??? The media deal will be designed as a test run with Amazon, therefore only 4-5 year deal. The plan being for Amazon to go all in and sign campus deals outside of simply streaming sports. Amazon will look to partner with the institutions on a wide range of areas including technology research and workforce programs, etc. Amazon will practically own these campuses, and their sports data (gaming and gambling will be part of this too). The upcoming 4-5 year deal will distribute roughly $33 million per school. That’s my current reading of the Crystal Ball.
Different topic… definitely agree that the best option is having post season earnings go to the teams that earns it. At a minimum 50/50 split between the school(s) in the playoffs and/or bowls, and the other half divided equally among the members.
The above does not include transfer portal rankings. 247 will soon come out with a composite recruiting/portal ranking. This will help OR ST with the DJU signing and ASU and CU bringing in a big number of transfers. I expect the Ducks will still be at the top of the Pac-10 when the composite rankings are published.
Phil Knight has invested hundreds of millions, maybe a billion dollars to elevate Oregon's brand. When he passes, what is the half-life of Oregon's brand value? I'd guess four years, so in 6-8 years they will be comparable to Oregon State. Should the conference give a greater share of revenues based on Phil's subsidy? Or should Oregon's brand value be calibrated with the assumption Phil did not poor millions into their brand?
Hmmm, the DMA chart you use would put SMU at the top of the PAC if they were added. My guess is the number of Amazon subscribers in the DFW DMA would be proportionate as well. So, at least the market potential would be there.
I do not have television, by choice. On game day, I watch the little football go back and forth across the pretty green diagram and then, I read everything I can about the games. (Those college games of which I am interested.) I am very hopeful and excited about Amazon possibly presenting games for the Pac-12 at a reasonable price.
This is why I very much enjoy the gallery of pictures you share. I can put a picture to the play. Sometimes.
When you cut through all the subterfuge it really doesn't matter when or how the media rights deal comes into being, the cut for each school will be in the low $30 million range.
What matters is when is San Diego State going to be added along with another school not named Boise, Fresno, UNLV et al?
Really wished there would have been a merger of some type with the BIG-12 but that ship has sailed.
Since the cable companies will never buy into a cafeteria model (choose your networks and channels and don’t pay for content you don’t want), apps and streaming is the only way to build an audience. I’d love to pay a Pac-12 subscription as I don’t have cable, and I love watching other sports offered like soccer, softball and track and field.
Good info John, thanks. I agree that added incentive for post-season success makes sense. Schools can decide if they want to invest more to reach those incentives (or not). Incentives should be awarded for results, not spending. However, I've always questioned the valuation based on the TV audience of the town (and adjacent towns) where the school is located. This is the NFL model, where allegiance is primarily due to where you live (or where you used to live). Thus even though I live in Oregon I still have some rooting interest in the Chicago Bears since I grew up near Chicago. But college is different. Proximity is part of it, but a bigger part of allegiance is some other connection with a school, usually having one to school there. I went to OSU and so I have been an OSU fan and would watch OSU games regardless of where I have lived over many years. I realize this type of reach is harder to measure than population of a given town, but it is a major factor on who will tune on to a game. How else can you explain the huge media deals that Notre Dame gets? They are not due to the population of South Bend, IN.
In order to leave the conference, somebody has to want you. No one has shown any interest in Washington, or Oregon.
The Big Ten got the schools it wanted. Now that the expansion-minded commissioner has left for the Bears, the conference seems ready to stay pat at 16, with the SoCal schools.
And I think they will discover that is too big, with too much travel, with too many fingers in the media-rights pie, and with the loss of traditional rivalries because schools will not play each other as often.
A 16-team WAC did not work in the 1990s, and schools broke away to form the MWC. How many ACC fans are happy about their 15-team league and having to play geographical outliers like Pitt, BC and Syracuse, which are almost always the worst draws for the historical ACC schools?
For $5/mo, Peacock gives me the Premier League and every WWE PPV event. Twenty years ago, just one WWE event was $50.
ESPN+, Disney, and Hulu are now folded into my Verizon Wireless subscription. For $100/mo I get those three services plus 5G talk and text. Verizon also just gave me a year of Netflix for signing up for NBA League Pass for $79. Good God.
The MLS package became available on Apple TV yesterday for $14.99/mo. Third-tier soccer for 3x what NBC charges for the world's most popular soccer league (plus a WHOLE lot more).
To suggest we'll be paying double to stream five years from now seems...ambitious.
All this to say, I'll be very interested to see what a Pac-12 streaming package looks like.
Great stuff John!
Great research/information JC.
1. I’m so irritated with Comcast right now, as the bill has gone up again, $215, which means another biennial phone call to play the shell game with them to get it reduced for 6 months, and then watch it increase several times over 18 months…and then call again. Hey, wait- are we consumer’s subsidizing the 50M?!
2. Ease in on the streaming.
3. Bigger payout for teams that play post season.
4. Hook SOCal schools for their full share of Comcast fiasco, and wait until 7/1/24 to sell PC12 network. You know why.
The gifts that Larry Scott keeps giving us are depressing. I blame the USC/UCLA and media situation on him. If the coference heads had any cajones they would sue him into bankruptcy. But they probably screwed that ability up too. Being an academic doesn't equate to being smart. As far as media at my man cave, I have had to spend $82 a month on FUBO so I can watch PAC12 sports. Which sucks. If Amazon were carrying it I could use my Prime membership. Personally, I wish Washington and Oregon would ask for more, after all, in this world it's every rat for them self. Why pretend differently. another great article John, thanks.
Very interesting take, thank you.
Why is the DMA the driving factor and not the number of eyeballs that watch a given team play? Rutgers is in a huge DMA but how many people watch Rutgers football? Same with Northwestern and viewers in the Chicago area. Oregon has a far bigger brand and is watched by far more people than any teams in the Pac-10 and in the B12 sans Oklahoma and Texas.
P5 CFB/CBB are big-time capitalist ventures. So why the even 'socialist' revenue split? I think the 'producers' in the Pac-10, Oregon, UW, Utah, and CU have every right to a bigger piece of the pie.
IMO revenue should be split based on capital spent on athletics, including coaching salaries and amortized facilities investment, viewers watching the money-ball sports, attendance at CFB/CBB games, and success on the field and court.
Law firms do not give every partner an equal piece of the revenue. The partners' who bring in the big clients and produce the largest billings get paid more money.
I see no reason why OR/UW should subsidize CAL/Stanford which may as well be in the Ivy League.
Now, the Oregon and UW brands are going to be beta sites for CFB streaming?
I think that AZ, ASU, CU, OR, Utah, and UW should be carving out a deal with the B12, ESPN, and FOX. A deal that keeps the teams on linear TV and with a premium paid for the Northwest schools to join.
Why go down with this ship? It may well be easier to make the CFB expanded playoff with the Pac-10 standing pat but why share the revenue with those who are not willing to spend the money to be competitive at the championship level.
On their own, the Pac-10, B 12, and ACC as currently constructed will not come within financial hailing distance of the B1G/SEC.
Great info! It’s fantastic having these numbers to compare. Wondering if Amazon gets all non-football/basketball sports exclusively, allowing for live stream of each event anytime. Basketball and football content split with a traditional partner. Amazon most likely wanting a weekly marquee Friday night conference matchup (cross advertise with Thursday NFL). ESPN+ takes a majority of basketball games, along with some on Amazon. Football mostly going ESPN and ESPN+, aside from the Amazon Friday games and maybe Saturday mornings??? The media deal will be designed as a test run with Amazon, therefore only 4-5 year deal. The plan being for Amazon to go all in and sign campus deals outside of simply streaming sports. Amazon will look to partner with the institutions on a wide range of areas including technology research and workforce programs, etc. Amazon will practically own these campuses, and their sports data (gaming and gambling will be part of this too). The upcoming 4-5 year deal will distribute roughly $33 million per school. That’s my current reading of the Crystal Ball.
Different topic… definitely agree that the best option is having post season earnings go to the teams that earns it. At a minimum 50/50 split between the school(s) in the playoffs and/or bowls, and the other half divided equally among the members.
247 Final PAC-10 Recruiting Rankings:
10 - CAL
9 - WA ST
8 - OR ST
7 - Stanford
6 - ASU
5 - Arizona
4. - CU
3 - UW
2 - Utah - #21 in the nation
1 - Oregon - #8 in the nation
The above does not include transfer portal rankings. 247 will soon come out with a composite recruiting/portal ranking. This will help OR ST with the DJU signing and ASU and CU bringing in a big number of transfers. I expect the Ducks will still be at the top of the Pac-10 when the composite rankings are published.
Phil Knight has invested hundreds of millions, maybe a billion dollars to elevate Oregon's brand. When he passes, what is the half-life of Oregon's brand value? I'd guess four years, so in 6-8 years they will be comparable to Oregon State. Should the conference give a greater share of revenues based on Phil's subsidy? Or should Oregon's brand value be calibrated with the assumption Phil did not poor millions into their brand?
Hmmm, the DMA chart you use would put SMU at the top of the PAC if they were added. My guess is the number of Amazon subscribers in the DFW DMA would be proportionate as well. So, at least the market potential would be there.
I do not have television, by choice. On game day, I watch the little football go back and forth across the pretty green diagram and then, I read everything I can about the games. (Those college games of which I am interested.) I am very hopeful and excited about Amazon possibly presenting games for the Pac-12 at a reasonable price.
This is why I very much enjoy the gallery of pictures you share. I can put a picture to the play. Sometimes.
When you cut through all the subterfuge it really doesn't matter when or how the media rights deal comes into being, the cut for each school will be in the low $30 million range.
What matters is when is San Diego State going to be added along with another school not named Boise, Fresno, UNLV et al?
Really wished there would have been a merger of some type with the BIG-12 but that ship has sailed.
Since the cable companies will never buy into a cafeteria model (choose your networks and channels and don’t pay for content you don’t want), apps and streaming is the only way to build an audience. I’d love to pay a Pac-12 subscription as I don’t have cable, and I love watching other sports offered like soccer, softball and track and field.
Good info John, thanks. I agree that added incentive for post-season success makes sense. Schools can decide if they want to invest more to reach those incentives (or not). Incentives should be awarded for results, not spending. However, I've always questioned the valuation based on the TV audience of the town (and adjacent towns) where the school is located. This is the NFL model, where allegiance is primarily due to where you live (or where you used to live). Thus even though I live in Oregon I still have some rooting interest in the Chicago Bears since I grew up near Chicago. But college is different. Proximity is part of it, but a bigger part of allegiance is some other connection with a school, usually having one to school there. I went to OSU and so I have been an OSU fan and would watch OSU games regardless of where I have lived over many years. I realize this type of reach is harder to measure than population of a given town, but it is a major factor on who will tune on to a game. How else can you explain the huge media deals that Notre Dame gets? They are not due to the population of South Bend, IN.
My guess on why media rights deal is taking a long time:
- Complexity of including a streaming broadcaster in a media right deal for first time in CFB.
- Complexity of selling or dealing with the Pac 12 Network.
- Pac not getting great offers.
In order to leave the conference, somebody has to want you. No one has shown any interest in Washington, or Oregon.
The Big Ten got the schools it wanted. Now that the expansion-minded commissioner has left for the Bears, the conference seems ready to stay pat at 16, with the SoCal schools.
And I think they will discover that is too big, with too much travel, with too many fingers in the media-rights pie, and with the loss of traditional rivalries because schools will not play each other as often.
A 16-team WAC did not work in the 1990s, and schools broke away to form the MWC. How many ACC fans are happy about their 15-team league and having to play geographical outliers like Pitt, BC and Syracuse, which are almost always the worst draws for the historical ACC schools?
.
Antidotally I believe the PNW teams have a higher fandom propensity does come into consideration vs less engaged SoCal Bay Area household numbers?