Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[PickSix]

What deal does Apple have with the NFL? Did I miss that?

I don't think they have anything. They were rumored to be the Sunday Ticket frontrunner, but the NFL went to Youtube with it.

Honestly, to me that's evidence of how careful Apple is with these decisions that they were willing to let the NFL walk. I highly doubt that they're going to all of the sudden go and give the Pac a sweetheart deal...

 

[Clonehomer]

Yeah, I get it, streaming is the future, but I think that's a lot different for tv shows and movies than it is for sports. The best part about college football Saturday is being able to flip between games instantly on OTA. That's a lot of lost exposure being stuck solely on a streaming platform. I'm not firing that up unless ISU is playing on that service.

The only way I'd be looking at a streaming service for Tier 1, is if that money was so astronomical you wouldn't be concerned about how many people were actually able to see your games. The kind of deal the PAC is looking at, solely to try and stay on par with the Big 12, is a huge mistake, imo.

I'd give it one more cycle of media deals to see how streaming shakes out before going that route. Personally, I'd love to have the Big12 go to a streaming service as that's the only reason I still have a streaming package. Even if that Big12 sports package was $20-$40 per month, I'm still way ahead of what I'm paying YouTube.tv and ESPN+. But I don't think I'm in the majority with this opinion yet.

 

[HFCS]

Same here but there are a couple of huge differences. If it’s the only NFL game it’s appointment viewing and people will find it. If it’s your college team, you’ll find it. For all other viewers it’s going to be about where the most games are aggregated and adjacent to games they are actively seeking out.

Fans of specific teams will mostly find it. I think they can kiss all casual viewership and a lot of moderate interest views good bye.

Yeah I meant vs Apple TV or Hulu or any other streamer, not vs ESPN or Fox for most people.

In a lot of ways Amazon is the closest to a utility bill compared to the other streamers. Nobody subscribes to one month or binges for a couple weeks on a free trial. You have it all year like a utility.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Agreed. I'm not old, and I have never watched Apple TV+. I don't intend to get it any time soon, nor would I even know off the top of my head where to get it/what it costs etc. I don't think I'm in the minority on that...

I can't imagine the Pac-12 on Apple TV+ would reach enough people to justify a $250+ million deal minimum that would be required to hold that conference together. And from what I've read about Apple, they prefer buying the whole slate of games (see the MLS deal) vs. paying up for a single game of the week or something like that.

AppleTV has some really good shows if you are ever bored.

But come on “I don’t even know where to get it” is the silliest thing to say if you’re really not old. You get it the exact same way you get any other streaming service/app.

 

[2speedy1]

AppleTV has some really good shows if you are ever bored.

But come on “I don’t even know where to get it” is the silliest thing to say if you’re really not old. You get it the exact same way you get any other streaming service/app.

To be fair I do think a lot of people think you have to have an Apple device to get it. Like their AppleTV box etc. I dont think a lot of people realize it is just an app like any other streaming app, and is separate from AppleTV and Apple devices.

I think a lot of people still confuse the old Hulu standard, with Hulu+Live today, and dont realize it is basically the same as a digital cable subscription with all the live content, plus all the on demand content etc. Just the same as people think you have to pay for ESPN+ and Disney+ separately with Hulu+Live, like you do on YoutubeTV, not realizing/understanding it is included with Hulu+Live, with no addon needed.

One of the reasons Hulu had that ad campaign trying to differentiate that Hulu+Live is different.

 

[Clonehomer]

AppleTV has some really good shows if you are ever bored.

But come on “I don’t even know where to get it” is the silliest thing to say if you’re really not old. You get it the exact same way you get any other streaming service/app.

I think it's about viewing habits for CFB. It's pretty common to flip between games for those without a rooting interest in one of the teams playing. Flipping to AppleTV then back to ESPN is a lot harder process than flipping from Fox to ESPN. You'll certainly get the fans of the schools to tune in. It's the general CFB fans that you'll lose out on.

I know Apple and Google have apps that'll show you what's on different apps, but it's still not as seamless as staying within an app. Maybe that'll be the next jump is when you have a streaming box that keeps multiple apps open and running to make it easier to swap back and forth for live events.

 

[Gonzo]

I think it's about viewing habits for CFB. It's pretty common to flip between games for those without a rooting interest in one of the teams playing. Flipping to AppleTV then back to ESPN is a lot harder process than flipping from Fox to ESPN. You'll certainly get the fans of the schools to tune in. It's the general CFB fans that you'll lose out on.

I know Apple and Google have apps that'll show you what's on different apps, but it's still not as seamless as staying within an app. Maybe that'll be the next jump is when you have a streaming box that keeps multiple apps open and running to make it easier to swap back and forth for live events.

Agree mostly but flipping from Hulu Live TV over to Prime for Thursday Night Football isn't all that complicated, just a few buttons, I can't imagine it'll be any more complicated with Apple. If there's a ranked matchup that I think will be fun to watch I'll switch over to Apple, but I do agree they're going to lose a ton of casual viewers who just flip up and down the guide looking for the best game to watch.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

To be fair I do think a lot of people think you have to have an Apple device to get it. Like their AppleTV box etc. I dont think a lot of people realize it is just an app like any other streaming app, and is separate from AppleTV and Apple devices.

I think a lot of people still confuse the old Hulu standard, with Hulu+Live today, and dont realize it is basically the same as a digital cable subscription with all the live content, plus all the on demand content etc. Just the same as people think you have to pay for ESPN+ and Disney+ separately with Hulu+Live, like you do on YoutubeTV, not realizing/understanding it is included with Hulu+Live, with no addon needed.

One of the reasons Hulu had that ad campaign trying to differentiate that Hulu+Live is different.

There isn’t a young person in the US that thinks you need an Apple box in order to get Apple TV. I get anyone over 50 being at a complete loss but he said he was young. You don’t really need hardware for anything streaming anymore outside of the TV itself.

 

[KnappShack]

There isn’t a young person in the US that thinks you need an Apple box in order to get Apple TV. I get anyone over 50 being at a complete loss but he said he was young. You don’t really need hardware for anything streaming anymore outside of the TV itself.

Have you been around here when we get a game on ESPN+?

That's a sports network and the level of confusion can be pretty high.

Mix in something called Apple+ and it would be a flat out train wreck.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Have you been around here when we get a game on ESPN+?

That's a sports network and the level of confusion can be pretty high.

Mix in something called Apple+ and it would be a flat out train wreck.

Yeah but I usually assume those people trend a bit older. Obv making an assumption but most young people are well versed in tech/streaming.

I would totally expect a bunch of Midwest boomers to have no idea what that god dang espn+ is and why it won’t come on my gosh darn cable box. What am I paying this bill for anyway if I can’t watch my gawd damn cyclones. Back in my day Sharon they put everything on one god damn channel and no one complained! Stupid techno kids ruining everything…

 

[KnappShack]

Yeah but I usually assume those people trend a bit older. Obv making an assumption but most young people are well versed in tech/streaming.

I would totally expect a bunch of Midwest boomers to have no idea what that god dang espn+ is and why it won’t come on my gosh darn cable box. What am I paying this bill for anyway if I can’t watch my gawd damn cyclones. Back in my day Sharon they put everything on one god damn channel and no one complained! Stupid techno kids ruining everything…

Not a bad assessment, but I'd also add something about these techno kids being lazy.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Not a bad assessment, but I'd also add something about these techno kids being lazy.

Crap I knew I missed something

 

[isucy86]

No, that is not what it means. You are reading WAY too much into that. It does say the it is expected to be "More Even" Does not in any way say they are going to split it evenly between all 71 schools.

Like many have said those with more members or those with MORE REPRESENTATION in the playoff will get more. In no way will they agree that if the PAC adds a bunch of G5s to get to 16, but only gets 1 team in the playoff, that they will get more just because they have 16 teams. Do you really think the SEC getting 4 teams in the playoff is going to say its Fair for the PAC10 with SMU, SDSU, Boise, Air Force, Memphis, Tulane, and 1 team in the playoff....gets the same per team/conference? Because its fair? Yeah dont think so.

Every conference would be running around adding all the G5s just to get numbers. In your scenario the B12 could add teams to get to 20, give the G5s half share and make out like a bandit. That is not how it is going to work.

You are taking something that says one thing and making it another.

The guard rails on that idea are a conferences media partners. Any conference adding teams is getting it's media partners approval ahead of time. The tier 1 rights are the most valuable and a linear partner needs the timeslots.

A conference isn't going to tick off a media partner if they want the partner to bid on the next deal.

So if the Big12 wants to get to 20, ESPN & FOX are going to need to buy into the idea- literally!!

 

[2speedy1]

There isn’t a young person in the US that thinks you need an Apple box in order to get Apple TV. I get anyone over 50 being at a complete loss but he said he was young. You don’t really need hardware for anything streaming anymore outside of the TV itself.

Im saying they confuse Apple+ with AppleTv. And they confuse Hulu with Hulu+Live. Not to mention those that actually do think that you have to have an Apple device to watch Apple+. Hell I am sure there are a lot of them that dont even know Apple+ exists.

Saying no young person confuses that is a reach. Maybe you havent seen all the videos of the young people that cant name the first President, or point to a state on the map, etc.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Im saying they confuse Apple+ with AppleTv. And they confuse Hulu with Hulu+Live. Not to mention those that actually do think that you have to have an Apple device to watch Apple+. Hell I am sure there are a lot of them that dont even know Apple+ exists.

Saying no young person confuses that is a reach. Maybe you havent seen all the videos of the young people that cant name the first President, or point to a state on the map, etc.

I would actually say it’s more likely they can identify the streaming service that has Ted lasso more then they can Washington or all 50 states.

 

[2speedy1]

I would actually say it’s more likely they can identify the streaming service that has Ted lasso more then they can Washington or all 50 states.

You might be right but I would take the bet any day that you could put 100 random people under 40 to the test and there would be plenty that did not know that Apple+ was avail on any device, was something other than AppleTV, or would not even know what Apple+ was.

I know a lot of people that probably have never streamed anything and use cable or satellite and have no idea what all the streaming services are about, a lot in the demographic you describe. A LOT. Hell there are a lot of areas in the US that still dont have reliable high speed internet and you think these people know about all the streaming services?

 

[KnappShack]

You might be right but I would take the bet any day that you could put 100 random people under 40 to the test and there would be plenty that did not know that Apple+ was avail on any device, was something other than AppleTV, or would not even know what Apple+ was.

I know a lot of people that probably have never streamed anything and use cable or satellite and have no idea what all the streaming services are about, a lot in the demographic you describe. A LOT. Hell there are a lot of areas in the US that still dont have reliable high speed internet and you think these people know about all the streaming services?

On top of all of this Apple is way down there for minutes watched.

The PAC going to move that needle? Did MLB draw viewers to Apple?

Not only is it risky going streaming but it seems extra risky to go with a streamer with a less than 20% of the viewership of Netflix?

 

[HouClone]

I was poking around the Pac boards to get their reaction on Apple. The big brands say the conference is toast. The left behind ones (example Cal) or long live the Pac (example Utah) are surprisedly supportive. These guys always turn it on the Big 12. But one guy justified as saying that 75% of the Big 12 games will be streaming anyways on ESPN +. That got me thinking. There might be some truth to that, maybe not 75% but more than we would like. That would suck.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

You might be right but I would take the bet any day that you could put 100 random people under 40 to the test and there would be plenty that did not know that Apple+ was avail on any device, was something other than AppleTV, or would not even know what Apple+ was.

I know a lot of people that probably have never streamed anything and use cable or satellite and have no idea what all the streaming services are about, a lot in the demographic you describe. A LOT. Hell there are a lot of areas in the US that still dont have reliable high speed internet and you think these people know about all the streaming services?

Well when you said young I was thinking under 30 not under 40, yeah I’m sure there are bunch in their mid to late 30’s that have no idea.

Do people that live in non high speed internet areas even count as a demographic that people care about or track?

 

[BCClone]

Yeah but I usually assume those people trend a bit older. Obv making an assumption but most young people are well versed in tech/streaming.

I would totally expect a bunch of Midwest boomers to have no idea what that god dang espn+ is and why it won’t come on my gosh darn cable box. What am I paying this bill for anyway if I can’t watch my gawd damn cyclones. Back in my day Sharon they put everything on one god damn channel and no one complained! Stupid techno kids ruining everything…

You’re also assuming boomers are 50. Boomers are all almost 60 now. Is 50 year olds are Gen Xers and we grew up with computers so we have a clue for the most part.