Pac-12/Big 10/Big 12 Realignment

[pudgejeff]

5. Money is king and we're eventually right back where we started.

Yep, but we'd get in on the ground floor and be guaranteed a seat at the table.

It is funny though because it's only a matter of time before streaming platforms really do take over (and kill) cable, and it's probably not too far away. More sports leagues/franchises are either launching their own streaming products or joining up with services. I don't watch TV news and have never really watched sitcoms so I'm about ready to cut it loose myself. Sports are the only reason I still subscribe.

Hope not, I hate streaming sports. I find it frustrating

Like most technology, the more it becomes the leader the better it gets and the easier it becomes to use.

[Duck07]

Like most technology, the more it becomes the leader the better it gets and the easier it becomes to use.

For me the issue is largely the production side of things. I don't like the remote broadcasters who aren't in the stadium, limited cameras, etc.

[ducks5ever]

Like most technology, the more it becomes the leader the better it gets and the easier it becomes to use.

And if it's a hit success, the streamer reaps the profits, not us. The success of any streaming adventure doesn't impact us in a meaningful way from a revenue standpoint. Glad some of you are still trying to put a positive spin on things. If you are so confident about the future success of this, would you rather take a long term variable contract where we get less guaranteed money with variable incentives?

... i thought so.

[DuckMastaFunk]

Like most technology, the more it becomes the leader the better it gets and the easier it becomes to use.

And if it's a hit success, the streamer reaps the profits, not us. The success of any streaming adventure doesn't impact us in a meaningful way from a revenue standpoint. Glad some of you are still trying to put a positive spin on things. If you are so confident about the future success of this, would you rather take a long term variable contract where we get less guaranteed money with variable incentives?

... i thought so.

I think the benefit is the payout will likely be related to eyeballs instead of this antiquated system of - does your team live close to a metro area where a cable company can charge a higher fee for "local sports" regardless of if subscribers watch them or not. Oregon draws a national audience for many games, so in theory, it will benefit us. Also, I think everyone agrees that streaming is not there yet. Your example doesn't work because there's no reward for being the first adopter. When streaming is viable, everyone will jump over and it's not like streamers will say, "Well the Pac come over first so we're going to pay them more than they bring in because they were loyal to us".
Your scenario would be like saying - If you're so confident you'll make $250,000+ as a lawyer after you graduate, why don't you work summers in the courthouse for minimum wage instead taking a $40/hr internship elsewhere? Taking the higher wage now does nothing to prevent you from taking the higher wage later when it is available.

[greenyellow]

Looks like we'll be seeing some news coming soon as SDSU has notified the Mountain West of their intention to leave but they have no invitation from either the Pac-12 or Big 12 yet.

Embedded Tweet

[pezsez1]

The invite may not be official, but SDSU wouldn't be doing this unless leaving was simply a matter of "when," not "if."

Also, I do think there's a branding benefit to being an early adopter on streaming, especially for Oregon. The Ducks have built their program on innovation, bucking tradition, playing differently, etc. To be an early adopter of streaming would be highly on brand for Oregon -- much more on brand than taking a massive haircut to join another conference.

This media deal really could either buy the Pac-12 some time to get its **** together or it could buy Oregon time to remain a winning, cutting-edge program while someday finding a new home.

I'm also really excited about being in the same conference as SDSU. I definitely plan on taking a couple road trips to sunny San Diego. I'll be even more stoked if we end up roping in a Texas school. I may not like their politics, but damn, those folks know how to barbecue.

[pdxduck2013]

Would love to see SDSU and SMU join.

[ducks5ever]

I think the benefit is the payout will likely be related to eyeballs instead of this antiquated system of - does your team live close to a metro area where a cable company can charge a higher fee for "local sports" regardless of if subscribers watch them or not. Oregon draws a national audience for many games, so in theory, it will benefit us. Also, I think everyone agrees that streaming is not there yet. Your example doesn't work because there's no reward for being the first adopter. When streaming is viable, everyone will jump over and it's not like streamers will say, "Well the Pac come over first so we're going to pay them more than they bring in because they were loyal to us".
Your scenario would be like saying - If you're so confident you'll make $250,000+ as a lawyer after you graduate, why don't you work summers in the courthouse for minimum wage instead taking a $40/hr internship elsewhere? Taking the higher wage now does nothing to prevent you from taking the higher wage later when it is available.

In my opinion, that's only partially true. You're ultimately limited by your fan base even if the geographical limitations aren't as strict. So hypothetically speaking, someone in Florida/Texas/New York will have easy access to a Washington/Cal game, but it doesn't mean they'll watch it or have any interest in it.

No reward - that's pretty much my point. Some people think there's a benefit to being a first adopter. I dont see a clear benefit from being a pioneer (or guinea pig?) in this space.

Not exactly related but I just hope we dont end up in an ACC scenario where we get stuck in a long-term, low pay-out contract and will struggle to compete against the powerhouses in cfb.

[pezsez1]

No reward - that's pretty much my point. Some people think there's a benefit to being a first adopter. I dont see a clear benefit from being a pioneer (or guinea pig?) in this space.

Not exactly related but I just hope we dont end up in an ACC scenario where we get stuck in a long-term, low pay-out contract and will struggle to compete against the powerhouses in cfb.

I think you need to look at it in terms of reality-based best-case scenarios.

We are not getting into the Big 10. Zero chance. So that's not a best-case scenario.

The best-case scenario at this point is for the Pac to remain intact, expand, and get a new media deal that's the most lucrative of the "lower 3." Going on on streaming -- not just an emerging platform technologically, but also in popularity among recruits and younger viewers -- is a plus. And empowering streaming to kill off traditional cable is something that might eventually return some equality to the current landscape (which is beyond repair).

I get your concerns. And you're right, nobody is getting any ribbons for being first in this case. But it can be great for the brand and ultimately better for exposure than getting a traditional (and subpar) cable deal.

[Duck07]

In my opinion, that's only partially true. You're ultimately limited by your fan base even if the geographical limitations aren't as strict. So hypothetically speaking, someone in Florida/Texas/New York will have easy access to a Washington/Cal game, but it doesn't mean they'll watch it or have any interest in it.

No reward - that's pretty much my point. Some people think there's a benefit to being a first adopter. I dont see a clear benefit from being a pioneer (or guinea pig?) in this space.

Not exactly related but I just hope we dont end up in an ACC scenario where we get stuck in a long-term, low pay-out contract and will struggle to compete against the powerhouses in cfb.

I used to be a fan of Jeff Blauser, Fred McGriff and the Atlanta Braves because they were always on TBS as a kid; and Maddux/Glavine were always inducing ground balls to short.

One of the smartest moves that the AD did was 20 some years ago getting our games re-broadcast on the YES Network (Yankees) and the residual effect of creating new Oregon fans its had.

As to the point about streaming and the reward - what other reward beyond $ are you expecting for the P12/Oregon to receive from a broadcast partner to be so upset about this "reward?" We aren't likely to go to a mutually exclusive "streaming" only platform anyways but some hybrid combination between a Network and a Streamer (NBC/Peacock, ESPN/Hulu, etc). Frankly the Apple+ angle and its automatic iphone consumer base should make for a very interesting possibility, to say nothing of the ability of the streamer to combine with the P12 for online education opportunities. (Use Apple Pay while watching Apple+ to pay for your ASU Online...)

I think a very likely reward that I as a fan will get is the ability to go back and re-watch the game we just played as well as the rest of the games from the conference in an easier format to re-watch, that also gives me all the P12 teams games.

I also think it's highly unlikely that our next deal is going to be for a long-term length like you're concerned with the ACC. Seems far more likely we're in the short to medium length due to the ever-changing nature of the conference landscapes.

[greenyellow]

It's going to get ugly between the MWC and SDSU.

Embedded Tweet

[UOducksTK1]

Embedded Tweet

Content at 14 teams?

[greenyellow]

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[greenyellow]

Looks like SDSU is going to remain in the MWC for the time being.

Embedded Tweet

[buckmarkduck]

Maybe the big 12 propaganda isn’t such propaganda now?