[fullmetal]

The PAC doesn’t have this luxury. Rather than going with a low price and making money on volume, the PAC must get a much, much, much higher price from fewer more passionate fans.

Whereas the Big Ten might get $1 from 50,000,000 cable customers (many forced to pay against will), the PAC needs to get $500 from 100,000. This is imminently doable if you develop a different product from linear TV coverage with different benefits.

(Your analysis is not incompatible with Larry Scott's vision, and I suspect it aligns closely, but let me know if I'm wrong.  Pac-12 subscribers could access online streams of the channels, so even if the subscription was through Dish et al., you could get what you paid for online.)

If I understand you right, then how would this new Pac-12 model avoid the apparently pitfalls encountered by Texas' Longhorn Network?  Not a perfect comparison, I know--the chief complaint was that the LHN was hard to find on fans' existing cable/satellite providers of choice (not unlike Larry Scott's Pac-12).  With Apple TV, I imagine that Pac-12 fans would subscribe if they were already in the Apple ecosystem, but I don't think fans would necessarily become Apple TV subscribers just for Pac-12 content.  Also, would sports bars be able to access Pac-12 games on Apple TV?  If not, would future alumni club game watch parties be relegated to home gathering potlucks?

The era of a la carte media consumption/subscription is running into consumer inertia.  I don't know how Paramount+ or Peacock are doing these days: they grabbed all their licensed content back from licensee networks, iirc, in order to form the core offerings of their own streaming platforms.  Was that enough to move the needle on extra/changing subscriptions from consumers?

Do I have it wrong?

From 2021: https://www.austinmonthly.com/whats-goin...n-network/

[fullmetal]

The PAC doesn’t have this luxury. Rather than going with a low price and making money on volume, the PAC must get a much, much, much higher price from fewer more passionate fans.

Whereas the Big Ten might get $1 from 50,000,000 cable customers (many forced to pay against will), the PAC needs to get $500 from 100,000. This is imminently doable if you develop a different product from linear TV coverage with different benefits.

(Your analysis is not incompatible with Larry Scott's vision, and I suspect it aligns closely, but let me know if I'm wrong.  Pac-12 subscribers could access online streams of the channels, so even if the subscription was through Dish et al., you could get what you paid for online.)

If I understand you right, then how would this new Pac-12 model avoid the apparently pitfalls encountered by Texas' Longhorn Network?  Not a perfect comparison, I know--the chief complaint was that the LHN was hard to find on fans' existing cable/satellite providers of choice (not unlike Larry Scott's Pac-12).  With Apple TV, I imagine that Pac-12 fans would subscribe if they were already in the Apple ecosystem, but I don't think fans would necessarily become Apple TV subscribers just for Pac-12 content.  Also, would sports bars be able to access Pac-12 games on Apple TV?  If not, would future alumni club game watch parties be relegated to home gathering potlucks?

The era of a la carte media consumption/subscription is running into consumer inertia.  I don't know how Paramount+ or Peacock are doing these days: they grabbed all their licensed content back from licensee networks, iirc, in order to form the core offerings of their own streaming platforms.  Was that enough to move the needle on extra/changing subscriptions from consumers?

Do I have it wrong?

From 2021: https://www.austinmonthly.com/whats-goin...n-network/