PonyFans.com

It's no secret that Disney is shopping components of its empire, including ESPN. And it's no secret that Apple wants to be more of a media company. If Apple were to acquire the network, it would not surprise me to see it transform ESPN into more of a combined streaming and traditional cable business model, because ESPN will continue to lose money if it continues to use its current model.

In this context, the proposed PAC deal makes sense for Apple, as it would allow the giant to test the marketability of streaming as a primary means to broadcast games and perhaps move other non-PAC games to streaming it it buys ESPN. A recent study by Deloitte found:

"Around half of Gen Z fans say they have used social media—either to read comments and opinions from others or to interact with others—while watching live events from home. They’re also more likely than those in some older generations to say they’d welcome streaming video on-demand (SVOD) features that allow for more integrated social capabilities, like co-viewing with family and friends while watching live sports and a live social feed right on the screen. Around a third of Gen Z fans would also like the ability to watch the game from an athlete’s point of view and to have access to behind-the-scenes content from athletes as part of the SVOD sports viewing experience."

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/media-and-entertainment/immersive-sports-fandom.html?id=us:2ps:3gl:sportfs24:awa:tmt:062723:sports%20viewership%20trends:p:c:kwd-388487751113&gclid=CjwKCAjw_aemBhBLEiwAT98FMriLSramNF6k3nZT9p6mUN_W_plxxjA2fSwH2eB8kHyxklAuxyiNXRoC1coQAvD_BwE

This is difficult for me, as a leather-helmet kind of guy, to understand, but Apple has known this for years. I suggest that if Apple were to acquire ESPN, all of ESPN's P5 conference media packages would pay based upon streaming viewership on a game-by-game basis, rather than uniformly paying for content (i.e., loss-leader games) that the conferences impose in order to have rights to the marquee games. Apple’s PAC proposal appears to be a precursor for this, although it's not nearly all the way there, as it imposes on the PAC the responsibility of divvying up revenues among the members instead of equally splitting them. But is the proposal still too far ahead of the curve and is the PAC willing to be there?

Another thought:

If Apple does not acquire ESPN, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Disney would simply spin it off, leaving ESPN free to renegotiate these broadcast deals with the hammer of a threatened bankruptcy and rejection of some or all of its current contracts. Bob Iger (Disney CEO) doesn't care. He's obligated to make decisions in the best interests of Disney shareholders, not sports fans.

If this implosion were to occur, the ESPN-tied conferences could not simply run to Fox or CBS, as those networks are likely not in a position (or would even want) to have contracts with every conference. And even if they did, the conferences would surely take a haircut. What would that mean? More deals, where individual schools would have their own contracts or where "elite" conferences would split media revenues based on viewership, leaving their lesser conference mates with a much smaller piece of the pie.

I hate to even fathom a more extreme NFL, semi-pro landscape for college football than we already have, but it’s difficult be an optimist. Maybe I should just enjoy a nice fall day at the stadium and ignore everything else. On the other hand, revenues would be based on performance, not mere affiliation, which isn't a bad thing.

These are academic discussions, as there are so many variables and unknowns, and it's unlikely that any of us are on the boards of Disney or Apple, so we're all speculating. But perhaps we can examine and discuss media rights from a business perspective, and not merely from a Doak Walker-era sports purist point of view. After all, whether we're PAC, AAC, or somewhere else, we'll likely be affected.

Thanking you in advance for your indulgences....

Beat everybody!

Thanks, birddopper. The view from Perkins Natatorium is a bit obstructed with new IPF on top of it.



The PAC-12's dilemma has been made worse by the performance of the most recent Conference Commissioners, Scott and Kliavkoff.

However, the real source of the problem is being driven by media companies, who are controlling access and compensating the chosen few, the SEC and BiG10. This will push more schools toward them and perhaps to a lesser degree, BigXII. The PAC-!2 and ACC need to control their own destiny, if they can keep their membership together.

Media companies could care less about the health of college football and its traditional focus on regions, rivalries, and the welfare of both revenue and non-revenue student athletes (soon to be employees in FB and MBB), especially the absurdity of travel schedules for all sports.

When the western quarter of the US has no Power Conference in name or reality, the slippery slope will get steeper.

There is no question that media controls the landscape of college athletics and it's easy to see why the B1G & SEC are hauling in the big buck$. Those 2 conferences are made up primarily of large public schools with huge alumni bases and fan followings. They can sell tickets and media subscriptions. For the smaller public schools and privates to compete, they really have to have a name brand that appeals to the general public (Notre Dame setting the standard). Who knows where this is all going but it's clear that SMU isn't going to be high on anyone's list of attractive conference mates unless/until we can consistently win conference championships and make noise in the post season. Doing so would command the most attractive time slots for our games in whatever conference we might be competing in but it won't happen with one successful season. I doubt TCU is suddenly going to become a media darling because of last season's success if they can't sustain a similar level of success, especially with the name brands having bailed on the Big XII

A lot has been invested in making SMU football and basketball more competitive but we need to see results now or risk SMU not being able to compete at the highest level in college football and basketball. UConn, SDSU & FAU proved last year that P5 inclusion isn't necessary to compete for a basketball title and an expanded football playoff could at least provide the same opportunity to compete for a football championship. Regardless of how conference realignment plays out, we are fortunate to have wealthy alumni who are passionate about SMU football and basketball

Couldn't agree more, CPony.

The silver lining to all of this, if there is one, is that we don't find ourselves in a dilemma of having to chose our conference affiliation (yet). We don't control anything other than our performance on the fields and courts.

Many of us were around for the Pony Express when we were relevant. We were relevant because we were winners. As much as our excellent boosters, NIL participants and school administration may try, we have to win on the field and the court and do so consistently. Otherwise, no one, subscribers or otherwise, will be interested.


Excited for the team this year and its potential.

As much as I'd like an excuse to travel west, I'm starting to wonder if our best move is to stay in the AAC and win it a few times, thereby sneaking in to the playoff and the payoff that accompanies it.

Dark Horse wrote:As much as I'd like an excuse to travel west, I'm starting to wonder if our best move is to stay in the AAC and win it a few times, thereby sneaking in to the playoff and the payoff that accompanies it.

It would help if the AAC would change it's revenue sharing model to reward post season performance

Dark Horse wrote:As much as I'd like an excuse to travel west, I'm starting to wonder if our best move is to stay in the AAC and win it a few times, thereby sneaking in to the playoff and the payoff that accompanies it.

Not only is this our best move, its our only move right now the way I see it. The rest of this stuff is absolutely out of our control. After deferring for much longer than it should have, SMU is now investing in athletics at a level that I think will assure it a landing spot somewhere. . .but where, when, or how that unfolds is totally unclear at the moment. And with the investments in place, at this point SMU needs to show whomever that we can win on the field consistently and be a relevant and interesting athletics product. So we should focus on that and let the rest play out.

Investment + winning = opportunity.

Patience is a virtue, but in this instance, it makes business sense not to commit to a conference that would be a guinea pig under a new streaming revenue model.

ESPN acknowledges that moving to a streaming model will be "disruptive":

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disneys-espn-streaming-transition-to-be-massive-extra-disruptive-event-163725086.html

This analysis really doesn't give me confidence that the PAC streaming model will work any time soon (or ever, for WSU, OSU, Cal, ASU, et al).

Disney CEO Bob Iger stated yesterday that Disney is actively seeking minority partners in ESPN. He did not rule out a spinoff if Disney can't convince others to join the ESPN division, which currently operates in the red. Iger will not let ESPN continue to lose money and affect shareholder value, so the idea of a spinoff can't be dismissed.

If ESPN or any of the other networks transition to a streaming model, the Wake Forests. Oregon States, Vanderbilts and Northwesterns of this world will be forced to take less than a per-head share of conference TV revenues, leaving the bulk of the revenues to the usual suspects. After all, what good business reason is there for a network to pay the same for Vandy v. So. Carolina as it does for Alabama-Auburn? It is foreseeable that the networks will broadcast on TV/cable only the "good" games and leave the others to a pay-per-view or subscription based model. The "haves" won't care, because they will "negotiate" new intra-conference agreements that give them the bulk of media revenues.

So, while we may want to be in a bigger pond, we may see the have-nots of the P-5 conferences drop to our level, revenue and exposure-wise, at least, but with far longer odds to make the year-end playoff.

Is that what we really want?

birddogger wrote:Patience is a virtue, but in this instance, it makes business sense not to commit to a conference that would be a guinea pig under a new streaming revenue model.

ESPN acknowledges that moving to a streaming model will be "disruptive":

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disneys-espn-streaming-transition-to-be-massive-extra-disruptive-event-163725086.html

This analysis really doesn't give me confidence that the PAC streaming model will work any time soon (or ever, for WSU, OSU, Cal, ASU, et al).

Disney CEO Bob Iger stated yesterday that Disney is actively seeking minority partners in ESPN. He did not rule out a spinoff if Disney can't convince others to join the ESPN division, which currently operates in the red. Iger will not let ESPN continue to lose money and affect shareholder value, so the idea of a spinoff can't be dismissed.

If ESPN or any of the other networks transition to a streaming model, the Wake Forests. Oregon States, Vanderbilts and Northwesterns of this world will be forced to take less than a per-head share of conference TV revenues, leaving the bulk of the revenues to the usual suspects. After all, what good business reason is there for a network to pay the same for Vandy v. So. Carolina as it does for Alabama-Auburn? It is foreseeable that the networks will broadcast on TV/cable only the "good" games and leave the others to a pay-per-view or subscription based model. The "haves" won't care, because they will "negotiate" new intra-conference agreements that give them the bulk of media revenues.

So, while we may want to be in a bigger pond, we may see the have-nots of the P-5 conferences drop to our level, revenue and exposure-wise, at least, but with far longer odds to make the year-end playoff.

Is that what we really want?

As some of us have said, it might be better to be the proverbial "big fish in a small pond" because competing for conference championships and enjoying some success in the post seasons will get you more visibility and the more desireable time slots your conference media package has to offer

In summary, large, state universities with a tradition of success will benefit financially on a persistent basis. Less benefit for the SEC and Big Ten bottom halves and BigXII, while all remaining conferences and their schools will have their hands out for sources of revenue.

College athletics is broken amd controlled by media companies, and, due to the geographic spread of all conferences, costs will further increase while reducing fan participation.

In today's climate, it is hard to imagine most college presidents having to increase subsidies to cover athletic department budget short falls to compete the "haves".

And sooner or later there is going to be a choke point on tuitions which will further affect these programs.

Water Pony wrote:In summary, large, state universities with a tradition of success will benefit financially on a persistent basis. Less benefit for the SEC and Big Ten bottom halves and BigXII, while all remaining conferences and their schools will have their hands out for sources of revenue.

College athletics is broken amd controlled by media companies, and with the geographic spread of all the conferences costs will increase further while reducing fan participation.

In today's climate, it is hard to imagine most college presidents having to increase subsidies to cover athletic department budget short falls to compete the "haves".

This has been true for many years. The SWC broke up because the bigger schools and the ones with the right political connections could dump the smaller ones in return for bigger payouts. The whole thing was orchestrated by the broadcasters just as is today's realignment.

With the news that UO and UW are definitely BIG bound and in anticipation that most of the 4-corner schools will flee, it seems more likely that SMU will be invited to join the PAC.

But should we? After all, we'll be governed by George Kill Off A Conference and his ilk, the same guys responsible for the PAC's dilemma.

Not sure whether our playoff chances fall or rise with a change to PAC. But we will be more travel weary, to be sure.

Big Ten adding Washington, Oregon another cash grab amid leaders’ NIL hypocrisy

https://theathletic.com/4748841/2023/08 ... regon-nil/

By Seth Emerson

It was the Wu-Tang Clan that, more than three decades ago, captured the current spirit of college athletics: Cash rules everything around me. C.R.E.A.M. Get the money.

Cash, television money and football. That’s what rules — not tradition, not geography, not the desires of fans and not the sanctity of the Olympic sports administrators say are important. Football and money are driving the train, which is why college athletics is mired in the hypocrisy that is conference realignment.

Let’s not hear any more about limits to NIL rights. Let’s not hear more about guardrails or regulations. Not when college presidents are unencumbered by any regulations when it comes to chasing dollars. Not when we have the threat of a breakup of a the Pac-12 because of money. Not when we have trustees and the president of Florida State saber-rattling about leaving their conference because they don’t make enough money.

Let’s not hear any more about college athletes, young enough to go to war for their country, not being old enough to participate in a free and open market. The same free market concept that college presidents and commissioners are using to chase more dollars.

We hear about the value of other sports, the importance of academics. And yet the Big Ten, as it now gets set to gobble up Oregon and Washington — its third and fourth Pac-12 schools — has not yet invited Stanford, the best in the nation at all sports. Nor is the Big Ten rushing to pick up Cal, an elite academic institution (as is Stanford). Perhaps the Big Ten eventually takes those two schools. But not making them a priority right away, slotting them fifth and sixth on its West Coast wish list, shows what the game is really about.

Realignment is threatening to end rivalries, minimize traditions and reward a smaller group of football powers while rendering others to obscurity. Sorry, Oregon State, Washington State and whoever else. Them’s the breaks. If the ACC breaks up down the line, sorry to anyone left out, but you’re part of a larger marketplace, and if you’re left without a seat at the big table when the music stops, then that’s tough. This is a marketplace. A free and open marketplace for schools and conferences, who are acting in their own best interests.

And nobody is in charge. We saw that most starkly in the 2020 play-or-don’t-play mess, and it’s continued with realignment. It’s everybody for themselves. There is no commissioner of college sports doing what is right for college athletics as a whole. There is an NCAA, which has a president whose only job now, it appears, is to lobby Congress for a law that regulates NIL rights.

But not realignment.

They’d have more credibility on NIL regulation if their own actions showed consistency. Rushing for the money in realignment, choosing that over tradition and the travel needs of “student-athletes,” prioritizing football over all over sports, doesn’t show that consistency. Athletes being paid threatens the sanctity of college sports, but forming super leagues driven by television dollars doesn’t?

Yes, the current state of NIL rights, the mish-mash of state laws, is the Wild West. But so is realignment.

There is something special about college sports, different from the pros, and that should be protected. But if what was special about it was the players weren’t paid, then that was un-American and not worth protecting. Or at least everybody in the business shouldn’t have been paid. Once the coaches, administrators and schools could participate in a free and open market, so should have the athletes.

(And by the way you can safely assume many were already handsomely paid under the table. So pretending that NIL being used as a recruiting inducement is a new problem, or a problem at all, is hilarious.)

Here is what is legitimately special about college sports: Regionalism, and that any school can field a team if it likes, any school can use sports as the front door to its university, something to brag about, something to unify. There is still something quaint and endearing about it. Go to a field hockey, track or any other non-revenue event and you see authentic college sports. Even on the revenue side, go to a major college football or basketball game and you see what should be protected: The passion, the sense of pride and belonging to something bigger. That hasn’t been lost the last few years with players suddenly having NIL rights. College sports is still special and worth protecting.

But what’s driving realignment isn’t regionalism or a desire to spread the good of sports fairly around the country. It’s money. And college presidents and the NCAA cannot go to Congress now and with any credibility ask for limits on what athletes can get.

Money for me, not for thee?

Nope. As Wu-Tang Clan put it: Get the money. Dollar dollar bill, y’all.