- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pac 12 rejected $30 million offer from ESPN, demanded $50 million
Posted on 8/11/23 at 10:46 am to Cosmo
Posted on 8/11/23 at 10:46 am to Cosmo
quote:Because the PAC-12 without UCLA and USC was the lowest tier P5 conference.
Would be by far lowest per school among P5 doe
$30M/year per school wouldn't have been far behind the ACC. ACC has better TV markets, especially with the PAC-12 losing the Los Angeles/SoCal markets. And PAC games have the worst time slots for an east coast audience where the most TV eyeballs are at.
1
Posted on 8/11/23 at 10:49 am to DBG
quote:
The Apple deal was a good deal with potential to be a great deal.
I would have been skeptical of this, to be honest. The variable of how many people would actually pay for the subscription would scare me into not making that deal. They should have taken the ESPN money and not gotten greedy.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 10:53 am to LSUGrad9295
quote:
They should have taken the ESPN money and not gotten greedy.
Agree, curious if there was any ways to add Apple in at say 3 to 5 mill per school per year for the rights to stream like 3rd or 4th pick each week.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 10:56 am to LSUGrad9295
Yea I get that. The Apple deal was $23MM then an extra $1.7MM if they got 1.7 million subs- $31MM total. That seems attainable considering the populations of Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City, the Bay Area and the Arizona schools.
Certainly wouldn’t have been bad business to just take the espn deal and run though.
Certainly wouldn’t have been bad business to just take the espn deal and run though.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 10:56 am to 1999
And these are smart schools?
Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:13 am to 1999
Perhaps my biggest takeaway is that ESPN did not stupidly bid against itself. $30 million each was probably still an overpay, though.
This post was edited on 8/11/23 at 11:22 am
Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:20 am to MJackson
quote:
if that's true, then holy crud, those presidents are dumb as hell. $30M/school? all things considered (size of fanbases in pac-12, interest, attendance, low population in west coast, etc), that's a damn good deal that they refused
Also, the other sports would've stay intact.
This post was edited on 8/11/23 at 11:37 am
Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:25 am to 1999
quote:
The Pac-12 had an offer from ESPN of $30 million per school in the fall of 2022. The network wanted it all. But the presidents and chancellors wanted more. “We said we want $50 million per school.” ESPN's response? “Goodbye.”
they asked for 50 million after USC and UCLA already announced their departure to the B10????
Talk about not knowing your worth. I have zero sympathy for Stanford and Cal. They've been long due for a a slice of humble pie. Oregon State and Washington State seem to be more in touch with reality. I hope they find a home.
This post was edited on 8/11/23 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:26 am to 1999
ESPN and then make a deal with Prime, or Apple to stream it. This a great working model for the NFL and MLB. It's hindsight, but working with technology and finding the money tree isn't that hard with the models out there.
It may not be the sudden windfall that the SEC has with national contracts, but you water it, and in time, it grows the market. Today, the money is in streaming. And soon all sports will have to embrace it.
It may not be the sudden windfall that the SEC has with national contracts, but you water it, and in time, it grows the market. Today, the money is in streaming. And soon all sports will have to embrace it.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:27 am to 1999
quote:
Let’s remember that the Big 12 arrived at a deal — sans Texas and Oklahoma (who will leave next year) — for $31.7 million per school.
So ESPN offered a fair competitive price-point w/o USC/UCLA...
Damn, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
You see what a house of cards the PAC was without USC, who hated the current revenue share deal while in the past they always got more than everyone else. Don't bite the hand that feeds ya.
This post was edited on 8/11/23 at 11:30 am
Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:29 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
And people wonder why USC and UCLA wanted to get away from these clowns…
Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:41 am to 1999
That's hilarious, it's from the same people that thought they were too good for the Texas and Oklahoma schools not too long ago. No wonder Texas and OU bolted to the SEC, when they saw the company they wouldve had to keep with the PAC.
This post was edited on 8/11/23 at 11:43 am
Posted on 8/11/23 at 11:50 am to teke184
quote:
no USC or UCLA, they are frankly lucky to be getting a $30m offer for the whole league.
What are all you experts basing this off of??
Posted on 8/11/23 at 1:15 pm to TheRouxGuru
No Los Angeles market.
No “marquee” teams without USC. Oregon and Washington have good history but aren’t blue bloods of the sport.
Shitty TV time slots due to west coast night games at a time when the eastern and central time zones are going to bed.
This is the same problem the Big 12 had several years earlier as the two marquee programs (Oklahoma and Texas) left for the SEC, except they still had or could get a number of big markets such as Dallas, Houston, Orlando, etc, between current members and expansion targets.
The Big 12 expanded and was able to recover. The PAC thought they were too good for all their potential new members and disintegrated as a result of that.
No “marquee” teams without USC. Oregon and Washington have good history but aren’t blue bloods of the sport.
Shitty TV time slots due to west coast night games at a time when the eastern and central time zones are going to bed.
This is the same problem the Big 12 had several years earlier as the two marquee programs (Oklahoma and Texas) left for the SEC, except they still had or could get a number of big markets such as Dallas, Houston, Orlando, etc, between current members and expansion targets.
The Big 12 expanded and was able to recover. The PAC thought they were too good for all their potential new members and disintegrated as a result of that.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 1:30 pm to bamameister
quote:
ESPN and then make a deal with Prime, or Apple to stream it.
According to the OP, John Canzano reported that wasn't the deal offered. ESPN wanted it all at a payment of $30 million to each school. If PAC had taken ESPN's deal (which it should have), the Apple deal wouldn't have been possible.
Once PAC overshot its worth and ESPN walked away, that's when the Apple deal became realistic because it was their only opportunity at that point.
This post was edited on 8/11/23 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 8/11/23 at 1:35 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Especially Cal and Stanford. They kept blocking expansion.
LA Times has an article this week, saying it was USC President that block the most recent expansion, 10 months before they announced they were leaving.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 1:39 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
CARTER!
Posted on 8/11/23 at 2:02 pm to Domeskeller
Yeah big 12 pretty much stepped in and took that deal. So many self inflicted wounds for the pac.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 2:06 pm to 1999
How much are Big 12 schools getting? Can’t be that much.
Posted on 8/11/23 at 2:08 pm to 1999
Wasn't Scott passing on Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St back in 2011 the beginning of the end for them? But we just didn't know it at the time? Would their additions be enough to keep USC and UCLA from bailing? How much would they be worth now if they added those schools then, and kept USC and UCLA?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News