Pac-12/Big 10/Big 12 Realignment

[pezsez1]

Many more fail.

Scared money don't make money.

Also, Apple is a company that has a pretty good track record of making money, don't you think?

[dthomas=ddixon]

I love the idea of mostly streaming. Accessible anywhere. Cheap. No need for so many night games. Can improve the stadium product. It is the future. Production and content quality would be top notch. Much better than being cable's nighttime fallback.

Don't know a single person irl excited about streaming. Will be a disaster with every duck fan I know

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

I'm fine with Apple, not sure why some of you are so down on it when it offers us the one opportunity to capture new audiences to become Duck fans. How many iphone users are there worldwide?

Apple has also been getting their views far better than Amazon has so far and ESPN still has a west coast void for the linear option.

If I’m watching any games not UO, then steaming sucks. I like to have multiple games up. Apple won’t provide that. I also doubt very many people outside the west coast will tune into Apple to watch our games. Especially when it cost $99 a year and no other conference available to them. And I really doubt Game Day is interested in coming out west, knowing they have zero financial incentive too come all the way out here.

Let’s put it this way, how many of you would pay $99 a year or 14.99 a month to watch the big 12 right now? Not me. And neither will anyone from the Soith or east coast.

Exactly. Streaming means our games will only be watched by the pac-9 fan base, which is small and apathetic. It isn’t a national league where the entire country wants to watch the marquee games, like the NFL’s TNF. No one will be tuning into the pac-9.

I know I won’t be buying the streaming service, I’ll just use illegal streams ha.

[pezsez1]

I know I won’t be buying the streaming service, I’ll just use illegal streams ha.

Quoting Bill Gates from like 20 years ago:

"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

Bill Gates, smart man, another one of those guys who was pretty good at making money. He probably knows more than some of our financial advisors.

[GDuck]

Many more fail.

Scared money don't make money.

Also, Apple is a company that has a pretty good track record of making money, don't you think?

Overall yes but not with AppleTV. They receive between 1 to 2 bil a year from subscribers but spend 3 bil a year. They only survive because of the profits from their other products. Most companies don’t have the ability to lose billions and survive.

There and smart investments and dumb investments- streaming right now isn’t looking too good. Will see what happens in the future. In order to succeed they will need cable/satellite to fail (which they might) and then everyone will come running. ESPN puts games on ABC (FoxSports has Fox) so you can still have visibility outside cable/satellite- what will Apple do?

[dthomas=ddixon]

I know I won’t be buying the streaming service, I’ll just use illegal streams ha.

Quoting Bill Gates from like 20 years ago:

"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

Bill Gates, smart man, another one of those guys who was pretty good at making money. He probably knows more than some of our financial advisors.

My addiction is to duck football not streaming services. I don’t pay for any streaming services other than Amazon’s, and that’s only because I’ve had prime since it was a thing.

[pezsez1]

Overall yes but not with AppleTV. They receive between 1 to 2 bil a year from subscribers but spend 3 bil a year. They only survive because of the profits from their other products. Most companies don’t have the ability to lose billions and survive.

There and smart investments and dumb investments- streaming right now isn’t looking too good. Will see what happens in the future. In order to succeed they will need cable/satellite to fail (which they might) and then everyone will come running. ESPN puts games on ABC (FoxSports has Fox) so you can still have visibility outside cable/satellite- what will Apple do?

You're missing (or ignoring) the fact that AppleTV is rapidly growing and the losses are increasingly shrinking, and the fact that Apple can leverage AppleTV to increase profits on its other products.

Cable/satellite doesn't need to fail for AppleTV (or streaming in general) to survive. Apple just needs to keep doing what it's been doing -- and continue to incentivize subscriptions, such as by acquiring sports content -- and the numbers will steadily rise.

Apple is a massive company that's capable of eating heavy losses in order to get to the profits. Not all companies have that luxury, but Apple does, and I'm sure you could find several examples of this in the past if you dug through the company's history. Like I said earlier, Facebook bled massive amounts of money for YEARS before finally turning profitable. This is not unusual. This is how big business works.

My addiction is to duck football not streaming services. I don’t pay for any streaming services other than Amazon’s, and that’s only because I’ve had prime since it was a thing.

And I'm sure you'll be able to find ways to watch pirated feeds just as so many do with cable.... if this deal is accepted, which isn't a sure thing.

[GDuck]

Overall yes but not with AppleTV. They receive between 1 to 2 bil a year from subscribers but spend 3 bil a year. They only survive because of the profits from their other products. Most companies don’t have the ability to lose billions and survive.

There and smart investments and dumb investments- streaming right now isn’t looking too good. Will see what happens in the future. In order to succeed they will need cable/satellite to fail (which they might) and then everyone will come running. ESPN puts games on ABC (FoxSports has Fox) so you can still have visibility outside cable/satellite- what will Apple do?

You're missing (or ignoring) the fact that AppleTV is rapidly growing and the losses are increasingly shrinking, and the fact that Apple can leverage AppleTV to increase profits on its other products.

Cable/satellite doesn't need to fail for AppleTV (or streaming in general) to survive. Apple just needs to keep doing what it's been doing -- and continue to incentivize subscriptions, such as by acquiring sports content -- and the numbers will steadily rise.

Apple is a massive company that's capable of eating heavy losses in order to get to the profits. Not all companies have that luxury, but Apple does, and I'm sure you could find several examples of this in the past if you dug through the company's history. Like I said earlier, Facebook bled massive amounts of money for YEARS before finally turning profitable. This is not unusual. This is how big business works.

My addiction is to duck football not streaming services. I don’t pay for any streaming services other than Amazon’s, and that’s only because I’ve had prime since it was a thing.

And I'm sure you'll be able to find ways to watch pirated feeds just as so many do with cable.... if this deal is accepted, which isn't a sure thing.

You are all over the place. You are repeating a lot of what I’ve stated but make it seem you are saying something novel. As stated previously most companies do not survive after losing the amount of money Apple has for Apple TV. AppleTV is spending a lot more too - including potentially Pac-12. Will be curious to see how many more subscribers they will get. Plus I’m thinking that Pac-12 games will have an add-on fee in addition to their normal subscription fee. In the end, not good for Pac12.

[pezsez1]

As stated previously most companies do not survive after losing the amount of money Apple has for Apple TV.

Once again, it is perfectly normal for businesses to lose money for months or years before turning a profit. It's all relative. A restaurant will run at a loss but obviously not lose as much as Apple wading into an emerging technology. But if you have good people in charge armed with the right market research then both usually turn out fine.

Apple has a fantastic record of turning profits on new tech. Maybe even the BEST record. I'm sure your financial advisor would agree. So, relax about AppleTV and enjoy the show.

[GDuck]

As stated previously most companies do not survive after losing the amount of money Apple has for Apple TV.

Once again, it is perfectly normal for businesses to lose money for months or years before turning a profit. It's all relative. A restaurant will run at a loss but obviously not lose as much as Apple wading into an emerging technology. But if you have good people in charge armed with the right market research then both usually turn out fine.

Apple has a fantastic record of turning profits on new tech. Maybe even the BEST record. I'm sure your financial advisor would agree. So, relax about AppleTV and enjoy the show.

“Good people” - how about all those “good people” who have been in companies that have failed? More fail than survive - “perfectly normal” business is not the norm. These companies doing streaming aren’t new and have other revenue streams to offset the losses. If the losses continue, either the service will go away and/or the company will fail. Think I’m pretty confident with my financial capabilities and understanding.

[pezsez1]

“Good people” - how about all those “good people” who have been in companies that have failed?

Dear lord, man, stop getting hung up on semantics. I'm not talking about people with kind hearts.

You're acting as if early losses in emerging technology are indicitive of future profitability.

We are not talking about some little startup with a kickstarter campaign. We are talking about APPLE.

[GDuck]

“Good people” - how about all those “good people” who have been in companies that have failed?

Dear lord, man, stop getting hung up on semantics. I'm not talking about people with kind hearts.

You're acting as if early losses in emerging technology are indicitive of future profitability.

We are not talking about some little startup with a kickstarter campaign. We are talking about APPLE.

You were talking about more than just Apple. Apple isn’t the only streaming service. Again, over time if the service doesn’t start making money - it will fail. It’s pretty simple - time will tell. At this time, this is not good for the Pac 12 or Oregon (getting back to the original point).

[Phalanx]

You were talking about more than just Apple. Apple isn’t the only streaming service. Again, over time if the service doesn’t start making money - it will fail. It’s pretty simple - time will tell. At this time, this is not good for the Pac 12 or Oregon (getting back to the original point).

Following this debate with interest. I had stock until recently in another media company that is trying to throw everything into streaming. The company is old media and has several profitable sectors, but the streaming end is sucking it all dry, and this despite rapid growth in subscriber numbers. A lot of challenges in that sector. One thing these companies are all searching for is content though. Gotta think Oregon will find the right path eventually, one way or another.

[pezsez1]

Time will tell, but it's not smart to bet against Apple. The company's track record speaks for itself.

Good or bad for Oregon? That's more nebulous, and time will tell. Could work out really nicely if the deal includes some kind of linear component. We don't know that yet.

I'm not a fan of stealing content from behind paywalls, but I do want to share one paragraph from Canzano's newest post in the aftermath of today's meeting. It's an interesting question I'd not seen raised anywhere else. Definitely relevant if we lean into streaming.

Canzano, musing about "immediate expansion" and whether SMU is still a leading candidate.

The biggest draw of SMU is the Dallas-Forth Worth television market. With linear TV those 2.9 million TV homes matter — big time. But with a subscription-based product is it more appealing to add members who simply bring large, rabid fan bases? Do large schools in small markets suddenly look more appealing than small schools in large markets? Discuss.

First school that comes to mind that fits this mold is Boise State. (Although I'm sure there are better examples out there.) Often competitive, rabid fanbase, but too small of a footprint to be considered for expansion. But this is the kind of fanbase that would probably move the needle on subscriber figures.

[Duck07]

Good question - Peacock lost $1 bil last quarter - https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/27/2357 ... riber-loss

I'm already well aware of everything going on at NBC with this and its also not an uncommon thing for Accountants to push losses into one particular quarter, especially if you're doing something new that will have upfront, sunk costs.

If NBC was worried about losing 3Billion to start off, they sure don't sound worried about their future.

“We believe 2023 will be peak losses for Peacock and, from there, steadily improve,” said Comcast president Michael Cavanagh during a company earnings call.

Comcast also announced that Peacock’s annual revenue had almost tripled to $2.1 billion and that the service had gained 5 million additional paid subscribers during its fourth quarter, surpassing 20 million total subscribers. “It’s very clear we picked the right business model,” said NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell. “We made that investment... and made clear from the start we’re going to make a return on that investment. I think we feel better about that now.”

The writing is on the wall that cable tv is dying and streaming services are going to take over. Further we might even see Apple end up on Cable/Satellite TV as those companies look for more content producers.

[Duck07]

Embedded Tweet

1.5 Billion for 4 schools that combined have 1 quality basketball program is why I think the conferences are all going to be re-worked in a few years.

NBC might come out on top when its all said and done, but they're going to lose a ton of money on Rutgers who will never bring them back 560M.