[OutsiderFan]

It's not appropriate to discuss the Pac conference's media rights and associated issues in a thread titled "Colorado leaving," IMO, so starting another one here. Mods can do what they want with it.

I have no Earthly idea why the conference doesn't just grow a pair and sell its own damn product to customers. It's got school athletic departments with access to tens or hundreds of thousands of people. It makes zero sense to have your own network and not allow people to subscribe to it directly. I would pay for straight Pac games. I'm not paying for Apple TV, and then a premium to get Pac games. Not doing it.

It makes no sense for the rights buyer to lowball the league it wants to thrive, so its quality degrades and the teams become less relevant. But fans are willing to ante up money for NIL, and to a degree write checks to support athletic departments or specific sports in them. I'd be willing to pay $500/year for all Pac games like NFL Sunday Ticket, but only if all the money was going to the conference. Why doesn't the Pac just create a TV app that I can then use to pay for a sub, like any other streaming service? Why does it need to be on Apple TV? Why should Apple get my money? How is Apple going to help grow the Pac's viewership? Putting it behind two paywalls is brain dead.

Get creative. Allow those who sign up for the Pac's own streaming service 20% off game tickets. Give them access to All-22  (coaching video) so people can watch it or have others get their own YouTube Channels going that analyze the teams. Develop premium access content.

The Pac isn't going to win playing by the same rules as the other conferences. It needs to change the game and win at that game, not try competing with others who are much better at playing another one.

[OutsiderFan]

It's not appropriate to discuss the Pac conference's media rights and associated issues in a thread titled "Colorado leaving," IMO, so starting another one here. Mods can do what they want with it.

I have no Earthly idea why the conference doesn't just grow a pair and sell its own damn product to customers. It's got school athletic departments with access to tens or hundreds of thousands of people. It makes zero sense to have your own network and not allow people to subscribe to it directly. I would pay for straight Pac games. I'm not paying for Apple TV, and then a premium to get Pac games. Not doing it.

It makes no sense for the rights buyer to lowball the league it wants to thrive, so its quality degrades and the teams become less relevant. But fans are willing to ante up money for NIL, and to a degree write checks to support athletic departments or specific sports in them. I'd be willing to pay $500/year for all Pac games like NFL Sunday Ticket, but only if all the money was going to the conference. Why doesn't the Pac just create a TV app that I can then use to pay for a sub, like any other streaming service? Why does it need to be on Apple TV? Why should Apple get my money? How is Apple going to help grow the Pac's viewership? Putting it behind two paywalls is brain dead.

Get creative. Allow those who sign up for the Pac's own streaming service 20% off game tickets. Give them access to All-22  (coaching video) so people can watch it or have others get their own YouTube Channels going that analyze the teams. Develop premium access content.

The Pac isn't going to win playing by the same rules as the other conferences. It needs to change the game and win at that game, not try competing with others who are much better at playing another one.

[TooMuchTV]

It's not appropriate to discuss the Pac conference's media rights and associated issues in a thread titled "Colorado leaving," IMO, so starting another one here. Mods can do what they want with it.

I have no Earthly idea why the conference doesn't just grow a pair and sell its own damn product to customers. It's got school athletic departments with access to tens or hundreds of thousands of people. It makes zero sense to have your own network and not allow people to subscribe to it directly. I would pay for straight Pac games. I'm not paying for Apple TV, and then a premium to get Pac games. Not doing it.

It makes no sense for the rights buyer to lowball the league it wants to thrive, so its quality degrades and the teams become less relevant. But fans are willing to ante up money for NIL, and to a degree write checks to support athletic departments or specific sports in them. I'd be willing to pay $500/year for all Pac games like NFL Sunday Ticket, but only if all the money was going to the conference. Why doesn't the Pac just create a TV app that I can then use to pay for a sub, like any other streaming service? Why does it need to be on Apple TV? Why should Apple get my money? How is Apple going to help grow the Pac's viewership? Putting it behind two paywalls is brain dead.

Get creative. Allow those who sign up for the Pac's own streaming service 20% off game tickets. Give them access to All-22  (coaching video) so people can watch it or have others get their own YouTube Channels going that analyze the teams. Develop premium access content.

The Pac isn't going to win playing by the same rules as the other conferences. It needs to change the game and win at that game, not try competing with others who are much better at playing another one.

MLS Season Pass doesn't require an Apple TV+ subscription. I'd guess the pricing structure if this goes through would have the same option.

[TooMuchTV]

It's not appropriate to discuss the Pac conference's media rights and associated issues in a thread titled "Colorado leaving," IMO, so starting another one here. Mods can do what they want with it.

I have no Earthly idea why the conference doesn't just grow a pair and sell its own damn product to customers. It's got school athletic departments with access to tens or hundreds of thousands of people. It makes zero sense to have your own network and not allow people to subscribe to it directly. I would pay for straight Pac games. I'm not paying for Apple TV, and then a premium to get Pac games. Not doing it.

It makes no sense for the rights buyer to lowball the league it wants to thrive, so its quality degrades and the teams become less relevant. But fans are willing to ante up money for NIL, and to a degree write checks to support athletic departments or specific sports in them. I'd be willing to pay $500/year for all Pac games like NFL Sunday Ticket, but only if all the money was going to the conference. Why doesn't the Pac just create a TV app that I can then use to pay for a sub, like any other streaming service? Why does it need to be on Apple TV? Why should Apple get my money? How is Apple going to help grow the Pac's viewership? Putting it behind two paywalls is brain dead.

Get creative. Allow those who sign up for the Pac's own streaming service 20% off game tickets. Give them access to All-22  (coaching video) so people can watch it or have others get their own YouTube Channels going that analyze the teams. Develop premium access content.

The Pac isn't going to win playing by the same rules as the other conferences. It needs to change the game and win at that game, not try competing with others who are much better at playing another one.

MLS Season Pass doesn't require an Apple TV+ subscription. I'd guess the pricing structure if this goes through would have the same option.

[Giants]

It's not appropriate to discuss the Pac conference's media rights and associated issues in a thread titled "Colorado leaving," IMO, so starting another one here. Mods can do what they want with it.

I have no Earthly idea why the conference doesn't just grow a pair and sell its own damn product to customers. It's got school athletic departments with access to tens or hundreds of thousands of people. It makes zero sense to have your own network and not allow people to subscribe to it directly. I would pay for straight Pac games. I'm not paying for Apple TV, and then a premium to get Pac games. Not doing it.

It makes no sense for the rights buyer to lowball the league it wants to thrive, so its quality degrades and the teams become less relevant. But fans are willing to ante up money for NIL, and to a degree write checks to support athletic departments or specific sports in them. I'd be willing to pay $500/year for all Pac games like NFL Sunday Ticket, but only if all the money was going to the conference. Why doesn't the Pac just create a TV app that I can then use to pay for a sub, like any other streaming service? Why does it need to be on Apple TV? Why should Apple get my money? How is Apple going to help grow the Pac's viewership? Putting it behind two paywalls is brain dead.

Get creative. Allow those who sign up for the Pac's own streaming service 20% off game tickets. Give them access to All-22  (coaching video) so people can watch it or have others get their own YouTube Channels going that analyze the teams. Develop premium access content.

The Pac isn't going to win playing by the same rules as the other conferences. It needs to change the game and win at that game, not try competing with others who are much better at playing another one.

We’ve already been down that road (the P12 establishing and selling its own product) and it was a miserable failure.  The ship sailed when the P12 told ESPN “no thanks” when the Sports Leader offered to buy the P12 Network.  Since then, the conference has done nothing but compound their problems by making more bad decisions.  Today, it is nothing more than a Sun Belt without colored fields.

[Giants]

It's not appropriate to discuss the Pac conference's media rights and associated issues in a thread titled "Colorado leaving," IMO, so starting another one here. Mods can do what they want with it.

I have no Earthly idea why the conference doesn't just grow a pair and sell its own damn product to customers. It's got school athletic departments with access to tens or hundreds of thousands of people. It makes zero sense to have your own network and not allow people to subscribe to it directly. I would pay for straight Pac games. I'm not paying for Apple TV, and then a premium to get Pac games. Not doing it.

It makes no sense for the rights buyer to lowball the league it wants to thrive, so its quality degrades and the teams become less relevant. But fans are willing to ante up money for NIL, and to a degree write checks to support athletic departments or specific sports in them. I'd be willing to pay $500/year for all Pac games like NFL Sunday Ticket, but only if all the money was going to the conference. Why doesn't the Pac just create a TV app that I can then use to pay for a sub, like any other streaming service? Why does it need to be on Apple TV? Why should Apple get my money? How is Apple going to help grow the Pac's viewership? Putting it behind two paywalls is brain dead.

Get creative. Allow those who sign up for the Pac's own streaming service 20% off game tickets. Give them access to All-22  (coaching video) so people can watch it or have others get their own YouTube Channels going that analyze the teams. Develop premium access content.

The Pac isn't going to win playing by the same rules as the other conferences. It needs to change the game and win at that game, not try competing with others who are much better at playing another one.

We’ve already been down that road (the P12 establishing and selling its own product) and it was a miserable failure.  The ship sailed when the P12 told ESPN “no thanks” when the Sports Leader offered to buy the P12 Network.  Since then, the conference has done nothing but compound their problems by making more bad decisions.  Today, it is nothing more than a Sun Belt without colored fields.

[OutsiderFan]

It's not appropriate to discuss the Pac conference's media rights and associated issues in a thread titled "Colorado leaving," IMO, so starting another one here. Mods can do what they want with it.

I have no Earthly idea why the conference doesn't just grow a pair and sell its own damn product to customers. It's got school athletic departments with access to tens or hundreds of thousands of people. It makes zero sense to have your own network and not allow people to subscribe to it directly. I would pay for straight Pac games. I'm not paying for Apple TV, and then a premium to get Pac games. Not doing it.

It makes no sense for the rights buyer to lowball the league it wants to thrive, so its quality degrades and the teams become less relevant. But fans are willing to ante up money for NIL, and to a degree write checks to support athletic departments or specific sports in them. I'd be willing to pay $500/year for all Pac games like NFL Sunday Ticket, but only if all the money was going to the conference. Why doesn't the Pac just create a TV app that I can then use to pay for a sub, like any other streaming service? Why does it need to be on Apple TV? Why should Apple get my money? How is Apple going to help grow the Pac's viewership? Putting it behind two paywalls is brain dead.

Get creative. Allow those who sign up for the Pac's own streaming service 20% off game tickets. Give them access to All-22  (coaching video) so people can watch it or have others get their own YouTube Channels going that analyze the teams. Develop premium access content.

The Pac isn't going to win playing by the same rules as the other conferences. It needs to change the game and win at that game, not try competing with others who are much better at playing another one.

We’ve already been down that road (the P12 establishing and selling its own product) and it was a miserable failure.  The ship sailed when the P12 told ESPN “no thanks” when the Sports Leader offered to buy the P12 Network.  Since then, the conference has done nothing but compound their problems by making more bad decisions.  Today, it is nothing more than a Sun Belt without colored fields.

No, we have not. I have never been able to buy access to Pac-12 Network without a cable subscription to a service that carried it. I have wanted to for years but never could. That would be an example of selling its own product directly to the customer.

[OutsiderFan]

It's not appropriate to discuss the Pac conference's media rights and associated issues in a thread titled "Colorado leaving," IMO, so starting another one here. Mods can do what they want with it.

I have no Earthly idea why the conference doesn't just grow a pair and sell its own damn product to customers. It's got school athletic departments with access to tens or hundreds of thousands of people. It makes zero sense to have your own network and not allow people to subscribe to it directly. I would pay for straight Pac games. I'm not paying for Apple TV, and then a premium to get Pac games. Not doing it.

It makes no sense for the rights buyer to lowball the league it wants to thrive, so its quality degrades and the teams become less relevant. But fans are willing to ante up money for NIL, and to a degree write checks to support athletic departments or specific sports in them. I'd be willing to pay $500/year for all Pac games like NFL Sunday Ticket, but only if all the money was going to the conference. Why doesn't the Pac just create a TV app that I can then use to pay for a sub, like any other streaming service? Why does it need to be on Apple TV? Why should Apple get my money? How is Apple going to help grow the Pac's viewership? Putting it behind two paywalls is brain dead.

Get creative. Allow those who sign up for the Pac's own streaming service 20% off game tickets. Give them access to All-22  (coaching video) so people can watch it or have others get their own YouTube Channels going that analyze the teams. Develop premium access content.

The Pac isn't going to win playing by the same rules as the other conferences. It needs to change the game and win at that game, not try competing with others who are much better at playing another one.

We’ve already been down that road (the P12 establishing and selling its own product) and it was a miserable failure.  The ship sailed when the P12 told ESPN “no thanks” when the Sports Leader offered to buy the P12 Network.  Since then, the conference has done nothing but compound their problems by making more bad decisions.  Today, it is nothing more than a Sun Belt without colored fields.

No, we have not. I have never been able to buy access to Pac-12 Network without a cable subscription to a service that carried it. I have wanted to for years but never could. That would be an example of selling its own product directly to the customer.

[BobK]

I’ve had the Pac 12 channel from day one and love it.

[BobK]

I’ve had the Pac 12 channel from day one and love it.

[chrisk]

The pro and con of an Apple deal is that Pac-12 would likely share in the subscriptions sold. If the conference can market itself well over time, it could collect more and more money.

[chrisk]

The pro and con of an Apple deal is that Pac-12 would likely share in the subscriptions sold. If the conference can market itself well over time, it could collect more and more money.

[Softball Fan]

I believe PAC-12 streaming internationally to 80 countries was not very successful.  Apple TV may be a good platform for the conference five or six years from now.  Currently the conference still needs a cable network to attract the casual viewer of sports.  

https://pac-12.com/content/pac-12-networ...al-youtube

"Pac-12 Network is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, in more than 80 countries, live on YouTube!"

[Softball Fan]

I believe PAC-12 streaming internationally to 80 countries was not very successful.  Apple TV may be a good platform for the conference five or six years from now.  Currently the conference still needs a cable network to attract the casual viewer of sports.  

https://pac-12.com/content/pac-12-networ...al-youtube

"Pac-12 Network is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, in more than 80 countries, live on YouTube!"

[TooMuchTV]

I’ve had the Pac  12 channel from day one and love it.

Friends don't let friends subscribe to cable. :D

[TooMuchTV]

I’ve had the Pac  12 channel from day one and love it.

Friends don't let friends subscribe to cable. :D

[dabigv13]

We are going to get very few casual viewers on Apple TV with an add on package. And the more directly you tie payments to subscribers, the more some teams with bigger fan bases will want a bigger slice of the pie and have more granular data to back that argument.

At least Amazon or Netflix have big market penetration such that we might still have Pac games in front of some sort of national audience.

[dabigv13]

We are going to get very few casual viewers on Apple TV with an add on package. And the more directly you tie payments to subscribers, the more some teams with bigger fan bases will want a bigger slice of the pie and have more granular data to back that argument.

At least Amazon or Netflix have big market penetration such that we might still have Pac games in front of some sort of national audience.

[qwerty49]

No, we have not. I have never been able to buy access to Pac-12 Network without a cable subscription to a service that carried it. I have wanted to for years but never could. That would be an example of selling its own product directly to the customer.

Sling = streaming, not cable.  Plus IIRC you can suspend your subscription for 3 months every year.

[qwerty49]

No, we have not. I have never been able to buy access to Pac-12 Network without a cable subscription to a service that carried it. I have wanted to for years but never could. That would be an example of selling its own product directly to the customer.

Sling = streaming, not cable.  Plus IIRC you can suspend your subscription for 3 months every year.

[Softball Fan]

With my cable subscription I get SEC network, ACC network, and B1G network.  I frequently watch sporting events in those three conferences.  If any one of those conferences was only on Apple TV, the probability I would subscribe to Apple TV is absolute zero.

[Softball Fan]

With my cable subscription I get SEC network, ACC network, and B1G network.  I frequently watch sporting events in those three conferences.  If any one of those conferences was only on Apple TV, the probability I would subscribe to Apple TV is absolute zero.

[Canalejas]

When I had Dish and later Sling I really enjoyed the P12Ns. I wouldn't have gotten as into volleyball without the conference network.  But the sad truth is that not enough people subscribed to make other traditional carriers nor streamers like YouTubeTV want to pick up the P12Ns.  

So in addition to being sad to see traditional matchups go away, I'll be sad that we're likely to see fewer sports like volleyball on TV in the future.

[Canalejas]

When I had Dish and later Sling I really enjoyed the P12Ns. I wouldn't have gotten as into volleyball without the conference network.  But the sad truth is that not enough people subscribed to make other traditional carriers nor streamers like YouTubeTV want to pick up the P12Ns.  

So in addition to being sad to see traditional matchups go away, I'll be sad that we're likely to see fewer sports like volleyball on TV in the future.

[fullmetal]

Larry Scott tried that, making the Pac-12 a complete media vertical.  In a different era with different leadership and focus, it might have worked, but we just don't draw the eyeballs to compete with the revenue that other schools are receiving, and that translates to competitive disadvantages.  (I think...)

[fullmetal]

Larry Scott tried that, making the Pac-12 a complete media vertical.  In a different era with different leadership and focus, it might have worked, but we just don't draw the eyeballs to compete with the revenue that other schools are receiving, and that translates to competitive disadvantages.  (I think...)

[chrisk]

The pro and con of an Apple deal is that Pac-12 would likely share in the subscriptions sold. If the conference can market itself well over time, it could collect more and more money.

[chrisk]

The pro and con of an Apple deal is that Pac-12 would likely share in the subscriptions sold. If the conference can market itself well over time, it could collect more and more money.

[dabigv13]

At least Apple TV will get plenty of new Messi subs. Of course he is getting a cut of that too.

[dabigv13]

At least Apple TV will get plenty of new Messi subs. Of course he is getting a cut of that too.

[chrisk]

If the master deal is with Apple, big football and basketball games could still be jointly sub licensed to linear and cable TV.

[chrisk]

If the master deal is with Apple, big football and basketball games could still be jointly sub licensed to linear and cable TV.

[OutsiderFan]

Larry Scott tried that, making the Pac-12 a complete media vertical.  In a different era with different leadership and focus, it might have worked, but we just don't draw the eyeballs to compete with the revenue that other schools are receiving, and that translates to competitive disadvantages.  (I think...)

Focus on these two elementary marketing vectors:

1. Place: Where to access content (absent a cable or satellite or Sling subscription)
2. Price: The amount it costs to access the Product

The conventional thinking is Place must be a media distribution partner like ESPN or CBS. That’s now changing to include streaming services. But this still relies on a partner paying a rights fee and providing access to the content. The Product is not available for direct purchase from the rights holder in the current sports landscape. This is because leagues want guaranteed money.

Price and changing the Product are unexplored vectors. The conventional thinking is you need to charge a large audience a small fee that pays for the content. The Big Ten model is predicated on this, as it gets subscription fees for its network from cable subscribers who don’t even watch, like $1/mo. This drove its expansion, the more cable TV households, the more it could generate in small fees.

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.

It takes having some imagination and not playing by the rules of media companies and other conferences. It takes developing your own business model and if you need the financing to start up, going and getting it, rather than relying on selling your weakened product to customers for whom it has little value.

The PAC CEOs are utterly clueless how to create value by being entrepreneurial, and they lack marketing savvy. Kliavkoff clearly doesn’t even understand the business the PAC is in. He thinks he’s in the selling media to partners business. He’s actually in the fan satisfaction business and completely oblivious to how value is created that they will pay to have in the cord cut world.

[OutsiderFan]

Larry Scott tried that, making the Pac-12 a complete media vertical.  In a different era with different leadership and focus, it might have worked, but we just don't draw the eyeballs to compete with the revenue that other schools are receiving, and that translates to competitive disadvantages.  (I think...)

Focus on these two elementary marketing vectors:

1. Place: Where to access content (absent a cable or satellite or Sling subscription)
2. Price: The amount it costs to access the Product

The conventional thinking is Place must be a media distribution partner like ESPN or CBS. That’s now changing to include streaming services. But this still relies on a partner paying a rights fee and providing access to the content. The Product is not available for direct purchase from the rights holder in the current sports landscape. This is because leagues want guaranteed money.

Price and changing the Product are unexplored vectors. The conventional thinking is you need to charge a large audience a small fee that pays for the content. The Big Ten model is predicated on this, as it gets subscription fees for its network from cable subscribers who don’t even watch, like $1/mo. This drove its expansion, the more cable TV households, the more it could generate in small fees.

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.

It takes having some imagination and not playing by the rules of media companies and other conferences. It takes developing your own business model and if you need the financing to start up, going and getting it, rather than relying on selling your weakened product to customers for whom it has little value.

The PAC CEOs are utterly clueless how to create value by being entrepreneurial, and they lack marketing savvy. Kliavkoff clearly doesn’t even understand the business the PAC is in. He thinks he’s in the selling media to partners business. He’s actually in the fan satisfaction business and completely oblivious to how value is created that they will pay to have in the cord cut world.

[cardcrimson]

Charging $500 to watch Pac--Whatever sports? You might get parents, but zero broad audience. Great way to attract players too: Come to the Pac, where your friends and family can watch you if they pay through the nose. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Charging $500 to watch Pac--Whatever sports? You might get parents, but zero broad audience. Great way to attract players too: Come to the Pac, where your friends and family can watch you if they pay through the nose. . . .

[cardcrimson]

I hope Stanford or the conference will bring OutsiderFan in for a discussion. This mode of thinking about the challenge is sorely needed.

I've heard there is a job opening at Stanford. . . .

[cardcrimson]

I hope Stanford or the conference will bring OutsiderFan in for a discussion. This mode of thinking about the challenge is sorely needed.

I've heard there is a job opening at Stanford. . . .

[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/