Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

It’s interesting reading UCLA boards where they are pounding their chests about the B1G. Down the line, I think UCLA will be among the biggest losers in conference realignment. Football will struggle mightily, and I think basketball won’t be as good. There is a ton of long distance travel for the basketball team mid week in winter.
 
GawainBuff said:
The PAC12 (R.I.P.) finally dropped its proposed but never completed AppleTV deal, not sure the numbers make any sense:

If AppleTV sports subscription gets to 1.7 million subscribers each team gets $20-30+ million (or whatever). So would have to be a new subscription rate completely. Apple+ is currently $7 a month. At 1.7 mil thats about $12 million a month, $142 mill-ish a year, divided by 12 teams is…$12 mil per team per year. So the Apple Sports subscription would have to get to $20+ a month to cover team payments and overhead op to $30= mill, etc.

I suppose there are a couple of million PAC12 fans willing to go to $20+ a month to watch(?), but I’d have it for only 3-4 months a year. I imagine I wouldn’t be there only one. So the sub price would need to really be..what… $50 a month?
Click to expand...
The base was $23 million with escalations for subscribers. Most people doubt the subscription numbers would get beyond the first tier incentive, leaving the actual payout below the Big 12. Plus its 100% streaming with perceived exposure issues.

The pac 12 on Apple+ would likely have been a $12 per month fee separate from the tv programming on Apple+, similar to MLS.

The deal wasn’t horrible, but not nearly as good as what the Big 12 has.
 
Creebuzz said:
The base was $23 million with escalations for subscribers. Most people doubt the subscription numbers would get beyond the first tier incentive, leaving the actual payout below the Big 12. Plus its 100% streaming with perceived exposure issues.

The pac 12 on Apple+ would likely have been a $12 per month fee separate from the tv programming on Apple+, similar to MLS.

The deal wasn’t horrible, but not nearly as good as what the Big 12 has.
Click to expand...
In the scenario where the Pac 9 stayed together added SDSU for example, I’m not sure if I’d pay for the Pac 12 through Apple TV. I can’t imagine many out East or Midwest would either.
 
Creebuzz said:
The base was $23 million with escalations for subscribers. Most people doubt the subscription numbers would get beyond the first tier incentive, leaving the actual payout below the Big 12. Plus its 100% streaming with perceived exposure issues.

The pac 12 on Apple+ would likely have been a $12 per month fee separate from the tv programming on Apple+, similar to MLS.

The deal wasn’t horrible, but not nearly as good as what the Big 12 has.
Click to expand...
My point was… at those subscription rates, whatever the specifics, the money paid to teams doesn’t make sense: even at $12 a month of 1.7 mil subs (assuming ALL of it goes to PAC12 teams, none to Apple and none to production and overhead) is $244 mil or $20 mil per team. And that assumes everyone has year-round subs ($144 a year sub price.)

Where is the extra pool of money coming from? Subscription has ad revenue?
 
Last edited:
GawainBuff said:
My point was… at those subscription rates, whatever the specifics, the money paid to teams doesn’t make sense: even at $12 a month of 1.7 mil subs (assuming all of it goes to PAC12 teams) is $244 mil or $20 mil per team. And that assumes everyone has year-round subs.

Where is the extra pool of money coming from? Subscription has ad revenue?
Click to expand...
Yep, ad sales, increase in base subscriber rates. You would have to get the base sub at $6.99 per month then the add-on.

Edit: It looks like MLS Season pass has a discount for Apple TV subscribers, which amounts to $2 per month or $10 for the whole season but does not require an Apple TV subscription.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
Yep, ad sales, increase in base subscriber rates. You would have to get the base sub at $6.99 per month then the add-on.

Edit: It looks like MLS Season pass has a discount for Apple TV subscribers, which amounts to $2 per month or $10 for the whole season but does not require an Apple TV subscription.
Click to expand...
I don’t watch MLS or any sports sub package, except the Tour (and they only do in show ads). Do they charge an add-on to get access and then still show ads? So.. Apple sub + sports package add-on, plus still having full ad breaks?
 
Not surprised about CU-UWV. It seems like CU-UH-UCF could be for some kind of space cup.

That leaves us UC-CU (Cincy vs CU). The Mike Bohn Bowl?
 
Buffnik said:
Time zone adds value with media partners because of late time slots.
Click to expand...
Not if they are teams that nobody watches.

OSU has been a drag on the PAC12 for decades, they got lucky being a legacy member of the PAC with Oregon but their market appeal is more similar to CSU.

And if SDSU had any kind of fan interest they would have been in a higher profile conference long ago. They simply don't. Their TV ratings (including bowls) simply don't justify giving them a piece of the conference money.

I'd love to do a road trip there is not enough justification for adding teams to a conference.

When they can prove it with actual numbers, tickets sales and TV viewers then consider them but a great place to play golf doesn't do it.
 
GawainBuff said:
My point was… at those subscription rates, whatever the specifics, the money paid to teams doesn’t make sense: even at $12 a month of 1.7 mil subs (assuming ALL of it goes to PAC12 teams, none to Apple and none to production and overhead) is $244 mil or $20 mil per team. And that assumes everyone has year-round subs ($144 a year sub price.)

Where is the extra pool of money coming from? Subscription has ad revenue?
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I suspect Apple viewed the PAC as a loss leader for its content expansion.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
And this where LS and the presidents severely miscalculated
Click to expand...
But remember that at the time, the Pac 12 was the best conference with the biggest media deal. There was somewhat of a valid reason for the arrogance, but the lack of distribution would severely hinder the marketing of the conference over the next decade, so making it to 2024 ended up being the miscalculation
 
Poof - just like that it's all over.....
Here's Dr. Robbins' (an actual cardiologist) "Leavin' the PAC" letter to the UofA faithful :

​

​
Dear Wildcats,

I am pleased to share that the University of Arizona will join the Big 12 Conference in all sports beginning in the 2024-2025 academic year.

As many of you know, athletics serves as the front porch for the University of Arizona, as it is a rallying point for alumni and fans and creates pride in our community both here in Arizona and around the world. Arizona Athletics is positioned well for long-term success, as our goal always was to secure a bright future for our student-athletes, fans, and the entire university community.

I want to thank Athletics Director Dave Heeke for his partnership. We share a deep sense of pride in the University of Arizona, with its national presence and championship legacy that resonates throughout college athletics, and I look forward to his continued leadership in the years to come. Our move to the Big 12 Conference will continue to raise the University’s profile by increasing visibility, growing our reach across the country and around the globe, expanding our pool of prospective students, providing more resources to support our student-athletes, and presenting them with greater NIL prospects. We look forward to beginning a new era next year with fresh opportunities for athletics to fulfill its Wildcat Way mission to develop academic, athletic, and life champions.

Whether current students or employees, alumni, or community members, the Wildcat Family is passionate and strong, and I am grateful for its amazing and unwavering support of our student-athletes and programs. Arizona will continue to compete for championships on this expanded stage in front of our fans in a variety of old and new footprints, and I look forward to sharing in those experiences with you.

I want to thank the Pac-12 Conference for being an excellent home for the University of Arizona for so many years and for reliably supporting our university. We will enjoy our final year as a Pac-12 institution, along with Big 12-bound members Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado, while looking forward to our future as part of the Big-12 Conference next summer.

Bear Down, and Go Cats!

Robert C. Robbins, M.D.

President
The University of Arizona​

 
GawainBuff said:
My point was… at those subscription rates, whatever the specifics, the money paid to teams doesn’t make sense: even at $12 a month of 1.7 mil subs (assuming ALL of it goes to PAC12 teams, none to Apple and none to production and overhead) is $244 mil or $20 mil per team. And that assumes everyone has year-round subs ($144 a year sub price.)

Where is the extra pool of money coming from? Subscription has ad revenue?
Click to expand...

They recently said that the MLS package, which does not require an active Apple TV+ sub, currently has around 1 million subscribers, although MLS ST holders get free access. Apple is guaranteeing 2.5bn over 10 years and takes care of production. Based on this, my guess would be that they fully realise they'd be making a loss on it for period X and start making a profit towards the end once they've grown the user base. But then, that calculation may be too simplistic as Apple probably hopes that drives up sales for its hardware, keep the people hooked to the Apple ecosystem and drives up subscriber numbers for Apple TV+ once people have been exposed to it.

Key question probably is how big the Pac 12 core fanbase is (based on the difficulties they've had finding distribution deals for the P12N I'd say not very big) and how aggressively they'd have priced it to maybe attract other CFB fans. But that is obviously not accounting for other the other variables that Apple may consider that I mentioned above.

I think this and MLS is or would have been an experiment for Apple to see how it goes and if it might be worthwhile to bid for bigger and more expensive rights. At the end of the day, all this supplements Apple's core business, which is hardware and software, and is an attempt to decrease Apple's reliance on that. The company has enough money lying around to experiment with things. If it flops, it flops and the money they lost on it won't threaten Apple as a company.
 
Last edited:
AeroBuff99 said:
Yep, ad sales, increase in base subscriber rates. You would have to get the base sub at $6.99 per month then the add-on.

Edit: It looks like MLS Season pass has a discount for Apple TV subscribers, which amounts to $2 per month or $10 for the whole season but does not require an Apple TV subscription.
Click to expand...

I heard this morning that the MLS package has 1 million subscribers but 300K of those are season tickets holders who get it for free. And my guess is from a national perspective the MLS has a far bigger draw then the Pac12. I also believe these numbers were pre-Messi.

EDIT: Jens just touched on the same thing right before me
 
LesGrossman said:
Noooooo thank you. Bridge the gap to the east with ACC schools. Those two others just seem way too weak to take right now, no reason to do that. Take 4 ACC schools so our footprint is stronger in the southeast and we’ll be set

Pitt, Louisville, VT, NCSU, Duke (squeakyshoe conf), and Miami (if they don’t get an invite to SEC/B1G) are all better adds that are worth waiting for.

Can’t purge teams like UCF/Cinci so we should definitely stand pat without more junk
Click to expand...

It's like everyone has collective amnesia about the past 600 ****ing pages where we discussed how there's a lot of dead weight in the P2 conferences- Miss State, Vandy, Rutgers, etc. and you know why that is? Those conferences were made using old criteria that doesn't reflect present value, and their presence prevents those conferences from expanding in ways that add value.

If you add a whole bunch of middle of the road teams, it's only going to fill the conference up with middle of the road teams. How much do you think the B12 regrets taking some of the G5 schools they did last round because they were too full to capitalize on the Pac12 and potential ACC implosion?
 
Creebuzz said:
It’s interesting reading UCLA boards where they are pounding their chests about the B1G. Down the line, I think UCLA will be among the biggest losers in conference realignment. Football will struggle mightily, and I think basketball won’t be as good. There is a ton of long distance travel for the basketball team mid week in winter.
Click to expand...
Especially if they’re subsidizing Cal for the foreseeable future to make up the media revenue gap. UCLA will be earning significantly less than everyone else in the BIG and their expenses will be among the highest.
 
Denver_sc said:
It's like everyone has collective amnesia about the past 600 ****ing pages where we discussed how there's a lot of dead weight in the P2 conferences- Miss State, Vandy, Rutgers, etc. and you know why that is? Those conferences were made using old criteria that doesn't reflect present value, and their presence prevents those conferences from expanding in ways that add value.

If you add a whole bunch of middle of the road teams, it's only going to fill the conference up with middle of the road teams. How much do you think the B12 regrets taking some of the G5 schools they did last round because they were too full to capitalize on the Pac12 and potential ACC implosion?
Click to expand...
I don't think they regret it at all. They got their TV deal. Cincinnati and UCF are in good population centers and both have strong fan engagement. It also gets them into Florida and the upper Midwest where there are plenty of football fanatics. BYU has a pretty good following and is a National Brand. UH gets you into the huge population center (although I think they are the least attractive of the 4). I think they capitalized on the PAC12 as much as they wanted to - Cal and Stanford do not want to go to the Big 12 and I don't think that OSU, WSU, or SDSU move the needle anymore than what they already added.
 
JayHawk said:
I know it is lower population too but just cant figure why New Mexico as a state cannot filed 1 P5 quality team. Idaho is closer but in the same low pop not quite there category. Yes I know it is mostly population but Nebraska is lower and 1 other with a decent p5 team but cannot remember.
Click to expand...
Meth.
 
Jens1893 said:
They recently said that the MLS package, which does not require an active Apple TV+ sub, currently has around 1 million subscribers, although MLS ST holders get free access. Apple is guaranteeing 2.5bn over 10 years and takes care of production. Based on this, my guess would be that they fully realise they'd be making a loss on it for period X and start making a profit towards the end once they've grown the user base. But then, that calculation may be too simplistic as Apple probably hopes that drives up sales for its hardware, keeps the people hooked to the Apple ecosystem and drives up subscriber number for Apple TV+ once people have been exposed to it.

Key question probably is how big the Pac 12 core fanbase is (based on the difficulties they've had finding distribution deals for the P12N I'd say not very big) and how aggressively they'd have priced it to maybe attract other CFB fans. But that is obviously not accounting for other the other variables that Apple may consider that I mentioned above.

I think this and MLS is or would have been an experiment for Apple to see how it goes and if it might be worthwhile to bid for bigger and more expensive rights. At the end of the day, all this supplements Apple's core business, which is hardware and software, and is an attempt to decrease Apple's reliance on that. The company has enough money lying around to experiment with things. If it flops, it flops and the money they lost on it won't threaten Apple as a company.
Click to expand...
Good summary.

Apple has the money to risk, this would be a drop in the bucket for them.

If the concept doesn't work they lose some money but still get some value out of it as you state driving some other Apple sales.

If it does work they are in another cultural shift on the leading edge, something that they have built their business on.

From this perspective the MLS makes a lot of sense. Soccer would tend to have a younger, more tech savvy, and higher income (potential) fan base. The PAC from a college football standpoint better fit these characteristics than some other conferences but had it's limitations as well.

As long a Apple is building the corporate infrastructure for the MLS they could have overlapped a lot of that know how into the PAC. It then just came down to a question of how much money was PAC football worth losing money on to develop the concept and create the market.

The answer was clearly not as much as the PAC schools though it was.

Fair to say that Apple probably had a much better idea of the value of PAC football than the Conference itself had.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
But remember that at the time, the Pac 12 was the best conference with the biggest media deal. There was somewhat of a valid reason for the arrogance, but the lack of distribution would severely hinder the marketing of the conference over the next decade, so making it to 2024 ended up being the miscalculation
Click to expand...

Yes but the only reason they had the biggest media deal was because they were the most recent conference to cut a new media deal.

But as far as the marketing and lack of distribution, I couldn't agree more. Back when P12N launched I kept saying how bad it was for exposure and some people laughed it off and said just change subscribers, but when you have a product where the demand is already below all the other major conferences and you're regularly playing late games, you have to come to the market. The market is not going to come to you.

And as Klatt pointed out, the lack of exposure also hurt the conference in national awards and recruiting, which in turn led to missing out on the CFP most years.
 
Jens1893 said:
They recently said that the MLS package, which does not require an active Apple TV+ sub, currently has around 1 million subscribers, although MLS ST holders get free access. Apple is guaranteeing 2.5bn over 10 years and takes care of production. Based on this, my guess would be that they fully realise they'd be making a loss on it for period X and start making a profit towards the end once they've grown the user base. But then, that calculation may be too simplistic as Apple probably hopes that drives up sales for its hardware, keep the people hooked to the Apple ecosystem and drives up subscriber numbers for Apple TV+ once people have been exposed to it.

Key question probably is how big the Pac 12 core fanbase is (based on the difficulties they've had finding distribution deals for the P12N I'd say not very big) and how aggressively they'd have priced it to maybe attract other CFB fans. But that is obviously not accounting for other the other variables that Apple may consider that I mentioned above.

I think this and MLS is or would have been an experiment for Apple to see how it goes and if it might be worthwhile to bid for bigger and more expensive rights. At the end of the day, all this supplements Apple's core business, which is hardware and software, and is an attempt to decrease Apple's reliance on that. The company has enough money lying around to experiment with things. If it flops, it flops and the money they lost on it won't threaten Apple as a company.
Click to expand...
They also gave MLS away for free to TMobile customers, that number is inflated.
 
JayHawk said:
I know it is lower population too but just cant figure why New Mexico as a state cannot filed 1 P5 quality team. Idaho is closer but in the same low pop not quite there category. Yes I know it is mostly population but Nebraska is lower and 1 other with a decent p5 team but cannot remember.
Click to expand...

WV is right below Nebraska.
 
Th
GawainBuff said:
The PAC12 (R.I.P.) finally dropped its proposed but never completed AppleTV deal, not sure the numbers make any sense:

If AppleTV sports subscription gets to 1.7 million subscribers each team gets $20-30+ million (or whatever). So would have to be a new subscription rate completely. Apple+ is currently $7 a month. At 1.7 mil thats about $12 million a month, $142 mill-ish a year, divided by 12 teams is…$12 mil per team per year. So the Apple Sports subscription would have to get to $20+ a month to cover team payments and overhead op to $30= mill, etc.

I suppose there are a couple of million PAC12 fans willing to go to $20+ a month to watch(?), but I’d have it for only 3-4 months a year. I imagine I wouldn’t be there only one. So the sub price would need to really be..what… $50 a month?
Click to expand...

the wv guy said yesterday that the 1.7 million subscribers were PER TEAM. IF true that would have been completely ridiculous though the accounting seems to make more sense
 
JayHawk said:
Th


the wv guy said yesterday that the 1.7 million subscribers were PER TEAM. IF true that would have been completely ridiculous though the accounting seems to make more sense
Click to expand...
Per team? That seems highly suspect, especially when you consider the information where NFL Sunday Ticket is only 2m subscribers nationwide. DirecTV reported 2022 subs at 1.5m for NFL ST and they are saying YouTube needs 4m subscribers to break even.

There's no chance that GK was trying to sell the deal to the CEO group as being equal to the Big 12 if and only if each program gets more subscribers than NFL Sunday Ticket does nationwide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top