Pac-12 on Apple TV!?

[Michael K.]

IFC, Epix, Sundance, ESPNU, ESPNews, FS2, NBATV, B10, SEC, Tennis ch, Olympic ch, CBSSN, Golf, disney xd, universal kids, FXX, FXM, Pop... I mean it's really quite something. You get all the locals ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and then movie channels galore, the essential news in CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, fox biz, BBC, etc + an abundance of kids channels all on the basic 70-channel offering, And then I'm getting ESPN+ for my UFC content. Disney essentially for Star Wars stuff.

I have all of this now. And, if the Pac 12 ever figured it out and worked something out with DirecTV I would have that too. OR, I switch to Dish and have everything you just mentioned, or less per month than the $130 you are paying...PLUS the Pac 12 Network.

You actually think the best thing for people who want to watch sports, that are right now watching it on all the networks you mentioned plus more, is to have their content on another platform you have to pay extra for? WTF sense does that make?

If everything you mentioned above (plus more in my case) is what I already have, ESPECIALLY for Dish subscribers that right now have the Pac also, is what I already get! Why the eff would I be happy about "simply paying another fee"? Because Larry fucked up the first time and can't figure out how to fix it. You are LITERALLY the only person I have heard say ANYTHING positive about this.

[Vogelbomb]

Two ways this goes. It flops, and is like every thing else Larry touches.

The other? Larry and Apple are successful at it and the rest of the Conferences jump on board, for less $.

You actually think that airing your games on a pay for use service that right now actually has fewer viewers than your Bullshit network is somehow a can't miss?

If the Pac-12 gets $4.5B or something very near there -- 4.3, 4.4 -- then fuck yeah, I do! That's great value for the 2020 decade of Pac-12 football. What does it matter that a small percentage of people subscribe to Apple in 2020? The deal wouldn't be for a season until 2024 -- that's 3.5 years of opportunity for Apple to grow its platform -- and additionally, the Pac-12 likely wouldn't have any contingent pay tied to viewers. It's Apple that will want the viewers to justify dropping such a big dollar figure on the product. As for the fans, they'll do what they deem necessary. Say Apple+ rises to $8/mo $60 annually... we'll all as heads of households face the decision of what to add and what to cut to our TV offerings. I'm already thinking about that. I don't think that adding Apple + to get my Pac-12 football at even $100 year is something that I would go without. Sign me up. That's easy work. That's like one game ticket.

[Vogelbomb]

I have all of this now. And, if the Pac 12 ever figured it out and worked something out with DirecTV I would have that too. OR, I switch to Dish and have everything you just mentioned, or less per month than the $130 you are paying...PLUS the Pac 12 Network.

You actually think the best thing for people who want to watch sports, that are right now watching it on all the networks you mentioned plus more, is to have their content on another platform you have to pay extra for? WTF sense does that make?

If everything you mentioned above (plus more in my case) is what I already have, ESPECIALLY for Dish subscribers that right now have the Pac also, is what I already get! Why the eff would I be happy about "simply paying another fee"? Because Larry fucked up the first time and can't figure out how to fix it. You are LITERALLY the only person I have heard say ANYTHING positive about this.

I'm paying $100/mo and that's with NHL.tv package

Obviously people are going to make the decisions regarding tv that they need to make. But what does that matter to the Pac-12? Larry Scott's only job is to go out and get the biggest deal he can find. It's not his job to put more eyes on the sports. He has no control over whether the games get watched or not.

I don't understand why everyone thinks he should be considering access. We're talking about a network move 3.5 years away. Who knows where TV will be in 3.5 years?

[Vogelbomb]

I honestly don't understand what there is to argue with. It's the Pac-12's job to get as much money as it can possibly find for its league. It's of literally no concern what viewers are tied to that because these deals typically don't include added pay tied to viewership.

Every complaint is from an individual so tied to the past, probably still clinging to the cord that is comcast cable that they can't look into a 2024 tv future and imagine where it will be. Come 2024, maybe Comcast tv offerings will be much lower than they are now to compete with stream services, but as of now it costs $130-140 for an internet and preferred tv package with tax. That's a lot of money. I get 4x the preferred package of offerings + nhl.tv for the year at $100. I have wiggle room, too. I can scrap NHL.tv, scrap Hulu and Disney+ if I want, save another $20/mo and add something else.

This is the landscape of tv now in 2020. Where will it be in 2024?

[Michael K.]

I honestly don't understand what there is to argue with. It's the Pac-12's job to get as much money as it can possibly find for its league. It's of literally no concern what viewers are tied to that because these deals typically don't include added pay tied to viewership.

Having no concern over how many viewers they would get worked out real well for them with the last deal right? You honestly think they will make the most money by having the fewest viewers? And how long will that last? I mean, it isn't working now!

Every complaint is from an individual so tied to the past, probably still clinging to the cord that is comcast cable that they can't look into a 2024 tv future and imagine where it will be. Come 2024, maybe Comcast tv offerings will be much lower than they are now to compete with stream services, but as of now it costs $130-140 for an internet and preferred tv package with tax. That's a lot of money. I get 4x the preferred package of offerings + nhl.tv for the year at $100. I have wiggle room, too. I can scrap NHL.tv, scrap Hulu and Disney+ if I want, save another $20/mo and add something else.

This is the landscape of tv now in 2020. Where will it be in 2024?

This is the future? So, knowing what you know about the success of this Conference under Larry's leadership, you believe HE is the one to lead a Conference into the future? Genius. Who gives a shit about Comcast? The largest percentage of sports viewers, the last time I saw the numbers, were from Dish and Direct. With Direct, big shock since it is the one that doesn't NEED Larry and his bullshit network, the highest.

So, you think that going away from the top two and requiring a fee to watch is the best idea? You think people that watch sports on one of these other platforms are just going to pay an additional fee to get something they otherwise wouldn't?

Yep, the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12...with far more money and FAR more viewers, are being outsmarted by Larry Fucking Scott. Why? Because you think it is the future? There is a reason you are the only one that thinks this is a good idea...because it isn't.

Last time he pulled this shit, his game plan was to tell DirecTv Customers to cancel. That worked out real well. I just don't get your thinking that somehow fewer viewers is good for the Conference?

[D-train]

Two ways this goes. It flops, and is like every thing else Larry touches.

The other? Larry and Apple are successful at it and the rest of the Conferences jump on board, for less $.

You actually think that airing your games on a pay for use service that right now actually has fewer viewers than your Bullshit network is somehow a can't miss?

If the Pac-12 gets $4.5B or something very near there -- 4.3, 4.4 -- then fuck yeah, I do! That's great value for the 2020 decade of Pac-12 football. What does it matter that a small percentage of people subscribe to Apple in 2020? The deal wouldn't be for a season until 2024 -- that's 3.5 years of opportunity for Apple to grow its platform -- and additionally, the Pac-12 likely wouldn't have any contingent pay tied to viewers. It's Apple that will want the viewers to justify dropping such a big dollar figure on the product. As for the fans, they'll do what they deem necessary. Say Apple+ rises to $8/mo $60 annually... we'll all as heads of households face the decision of what to add and what to cut to our TV offerings. I'm already thinking about that. I don't think that adding Apple + to get my Pac-12 football at even $100 year is something that I would go without. Sign me up. That's easy work. That's like one game ticket.

Why would I want to pay an extra $100 for what I get for free now????

[D-train]

I honestly don't understand what there is to argue with. It's the Pac-12's job to get as much money as it can possibly find for its league. It's of literally no concern what viewers are tied to that because these deals typically don't include added pay tied to viewership.

Having no concern over how many viewers they would get worked out real well for them with the last deal right? You honestly think they will make the most money by having the fewest viewers? And how long will that last? I mean, it isn't working now!

Every complaint is from an individual so tied to the past, probably still clinging to the cord that is comcast cable that they can't look into a 2024 tv future and imagine where it will be. Come 2024, maybe Comcast tv offerings will be much lower than they are now to compete with stream services, but as of now it costs $130-140 for an internet and preferred tv package with tax. That's a lot of money. I get 4x the preferred package of offerings + nhl.tv for the year at $100. I have wiggle room, too. I can scrap NHL.tv, scrap Hulu and Disney+ if I want, save another $20/mo and add something else.

This is the landscape of tv now in 2020. Where will it be in 2024?

This is the future? So, knowing what you know about the success of this Conference under Larry's leadership, you believe HE is the one to lead a Conference into the future? Genius. Who gives a shit about Comcast? The largest percentage of sports viewers, the last time I saw the numbers, were from Dish and Direct. With Direct, big shock since it is the one that doesn't NEED Larry and his bullshit network, the highest.

So, you think that going away from the top two and requiring a fee to watch is the best idea? You think people that watch sports on one of these other platforms are just going to pay an additional fee to get something they otherwise wouldn't?

Yep, the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12...with far more money and FAR more viewers, are being outsmarted by Larry Fucking Scott. Why? Because you think it is the future? There is a reason you are the only one that thinks this is a good idea...because it isn't.

Last time he pulled this shit, his game plan was to tell DirecTv Customers to cancel. That worked out real well. I just don't get your thinking that somehow fewer viewers is good for the Conference?

I am sure that high school recruits from inner cities and other low income areas would be more than happy to fork out $100 to see which Pac 12 team they want to play for. lol

[D-train]

The success of a conference is dependent on EXPOSURE. Even if you had 5k subscribers paying a million a year it isn't sustainable. You still can't pay players to come play for you. No four or five star recruit would want to play for a conferences that nobody is watching and that their friends and family will have to pay to watch. That will lead to a massive decline in the quality of play and because of that subscriber numbers will fall and it will become a vicious cycle right down the toilet.

[Michael K.]

Come on, you don't think kids in California dream of playing their games on a streaming service and being interviewed by what ever scrub analyst couldn't make it on ESPN, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, or any of the off shoots of these networks!?

Hell, maybe I should root for this. I am probably pretty qualified to be a sportscaster on a streaming service! Fewer viewers means we lose even more ground in the recruiting wars, which based on our limited Final Fours in both sports doesn't seem like an advantage. Nor do I think fewer viewers will mean more money!

The entire thing is ridiculous.

[Vogelbomb]

Why would I want to pay an extra $100 for what I get for free now????

How are you getting college football games for free? Do tell