Rla1022 wrote:Very narrow thinking. Last number I found says Apple has 1.8 billion devices iPhones and iPads alone . Estimated at about 30 million is Apple TV subscribers. Each and every single device has Apple TV installed. Apple TV doesnΓÇÖt require a subscription for some content. Additionally a small percentage are actually paying for Apple TV. You donΓÇÖt even need to subscribe to Apple TV to get MLB. I donΓÇÖt know the ins and outs of the MLS deal but IΓÇÖm sure thereΓÇÖs a small fee ? I doubt Apple would create a COLLEGE FOOTBALL app cause IΓÇÖm sure someone will sue but that would be cool
MLS is $15/month or $99/season if you don't have AppleTV+. It is $13/month or $79 a season if you do. I would expect a college package to be similar. So, it's not even included in the regular subscriber package. That would be a terrible deal for building visibility.
If I were the PAC-12, I would be looking not just to replace USC and UCLA. I would be looking a few moves ahead and pitching the benefits of remaining in conference to existing strong PAC-12 members.
A few moves ahead: - I would proceed quickly with adding SDSU (to reclaim some of SoCal market) and SMU (because they are awesome in all ways, and I'm a biased SMU alum and fan) - I would also seek to add Tulane and Memphis...they give me more teams in the central time zone for early start times and they give me bedfellows for SMU and my mountain time zone teams. AND, they take future inventory away from the Big 12. - I would group my 6 central and mountain time zone teams in a division conference, along with SDSU since they will be the next closest geographically, and maintain some rationale travel distances, especially for non-revenue\-generating sports.
The pitch to existing members: - If we make the above moves, the conference is stronger in football than the Big 12 and the ACC (below is how I think the conference ultimately stacks up against the BIG12 in some detail, accounting for how teams will benefit from P5 status). - We would maintain our ties into the playoff system. - The conference winner is almost always likely to be included in the 8-team year-end playoffs. If a member like Oregon moves to the Big10, it's a crapshoot at best that they ever win the conference and make the playoffs (though not as bad as OU's future in the SEC, where they will likely never win the conference and likely never make the playoffs...but enjoy your media deal as you sink in national relevance)
PAC 12 Rank Big 12 Rank Comparison Oregon 1 TCU 1 PAC Utah 2 Houston 2 PAC Wash 3 Cincinnati 3 Push ASU 4 OK State 4 PAC Colorado 5 Baylor 5 PAC (accounting for Deon impact) SMU 6 BYU 6 PAC SDSU 7 UCF 7 BIG Stanford 8 TX Tech 8 Push Arizona 9 Iowa St 9 PAC Oregon St 10 West VA 10 Push UCal 11 Kansas St 11 BIG Wash St 12 Kansas 12 BIG
DC-Pony wrote:If I were the PAC-12, I would be looking not just to replace USC and UCLA. I would be looking a few moves ahead and pitching the benefits of remaining in conference to existing strong PAC-12 members.
A few moves ahead: - I would proceed quickly with adding SDSU (to reclaim some of SoCal market) and SMU (because they are awesome in all ways, and I'm a biased SMU alum and fan) - I would also seek to add Tulane and Memphis...they give me more teams in the central time zone for early start times and they give me bedfellows for SMU and my mountain time zone teams. AND, they take future inventory away from the Big 12. - I would group my 6 central and mountain time zone teams in a division conference, along with SDSU since they will be the next closest geographically, and maintain some rationale travel distances, especially for non-revenue\-generating sports.
The pitch to existing members: - If we make the above moves, the conference is stronger in football than the Big 12 and the ACC (below is how I think the conference ultimately stacks up against the BIG12 in some detail, accounting for how teams will benefit from P5 status). - We would maintain our ties into the playoff system. - The conference winner is almost always likely to be included in the 8-team year-end playoffs. If a member like Oregon moves to the Big10, it's a crapshoot at best that they ever win the conference and make the playoffs (though not as bad as OU's future in the SEC, where they will likely never win the conference and likely never make the playoffs...but enjoy your media deal as you sink in national relevance)
PAC 12 Rank Big 12 Rank Comparison Oregon 1 TCU 1 PAC Utah 2 Houston 2 PAC Wash 3 Cincinnati 3 Push ASU 4 OK State 4 PAC Colorado 5 Baylor 5 PAC (accounting for Deon impact) SMU 6 BYU 6 PAC SDSU 7 UCF 7 BIG Stanford 8 TX Tech 8 Push Arizona 9 Iowa St 9 PAC Oregon St 10 West VA 10 Push UCal 11 Kansas St 11 BIG Wash St 12 Kansas 12 BIG
Great Stuff. Hard pass on Memphis. Anyone except Memphis. Maybe Texas State or UTSA.
Rla1022 wrote:Very narrow thinking. Last number I found says Apple has 1.8 billion devices iPhones and iPads alone . Estimated at about 30 million is Apple TV subscribers. Each and every single device has Apple TV installed. Apple TV doesnΓÇÖt require a subscription for some content. Additionally a small percentage are actually paying for Apple TV. You donΓÇÖt even need to subscribe to Apple TV to get MLB. I donΓÇÖt know the ins and outs of the MLS deal but IΓÇÖm sure thereΓÇÖs a small fee ? I doubt Apple would create a COLLEGE FOOTBALL app cause IΓÇÖm sure someone will sue but that would be cool
MLS is $15/month or $99/season if you don't have AppleTV+. It is $13/month or $79 a season if you do. I would expect a college package to be similar. So, it's not even included in the regular subscriber package. That would be a terrible deal for building visibility.
The MLS package has some games on Fox in a content share arrangement, and some games on AppleTV free, so about 40% of the games are available for free. I would guess the same type of arrangement will be made with the PAC, where the big games are available, and to get wider content it would require a subscription.
We are in the same boat as SDSU in the above article. I believe we are going to get the invite, itΓÇÖs just a matter of what we will actually be joining. HereΓÇÖs hoping
Hop Sing wrote:We are in the same boat as SDSU in the above article. I believe we are going to get the invite, itΓÇÖs just a matter of what we will actually be joining. HereΓÇÖs hoping
Arizona State Ray Anderson tells Arizona Sports new @pac12 deal, "may not be the projections originally contemplated but will be a solid enough financial situation to keep this conference together."
The devil is always in the details. If we join, will there be guarantees that Washington, OR, and others will be around for 5-10 years? If not, will there be some remuneration to us for teams leaving. Or do we just jump and hope for the best even if its the new MWC. Our current situation with CUSA revisited is not good. I am not psyched about our new additions.
Rice, UAB, Tulane, Navy and SMU are far better academic choices than commuter schools like Houston, Cincinnati, UCF and Memphis. Maybe Turner and Aresco, emphasizing academics, had a better strategy in the long run for the AAC and PAC membership.
Last edited by SMUstang on Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SMUstang wrote:Rice, UAB, Tulane, Navy and SMU are far better academic choices than commuter schools like Houston, Cincinnati, UCF and Memphis. Maybe Turner and Aresco, emphasizing academics, had a better strategy in the long run for PAC membership.
Both the ACC and PAC-12 schools profile better for SMU academically and athletically. Our geography is a stretch for these two conferences, but in reality, is a plus long term for them with us being in the Central Time with a great airport, DFW.
