If Memphis is invited to the Pac-12, the Tigers should pack their bags and move on from the AAC

[El Paso Eagle]

Just out of curiosity, let's say it is more money, and you make it, and then it comes to find out that the majority of the gains were covered on streaming, say, Apple, for example. Is that beneficial?

[TripleGrad]

5 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Just out of curiosity, let's say it is more money, and you make it, and then it comes to find out that the majority of the gains were covered on streaming, say, Apple, for example. Is that beneficial?

 

Except for the Tech game and UTSA, aren't all this year's UNT games on ESPN+ streaming?

Last year was the same, all ESPN+ unless the opponent had a media outlet.

I don't see how Apple streaming is different from ESPN+ in terms of practical viewership.

[SMU2006]

16 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Just out of curiosity, let's say it is more money, and you make it, and then it comes to find out that the majority of the gains were covered on streaming, say, Apple, for example. Is that beneficial?

I think so yes.  In the next decade virtually everything will be digital.  You will always need a linear partner for some content but 80-90% of games are going to be offered on some kind of streaming platform.  

[C Rod]

I expect the new PAC 12 TV deal to be a 3-pronged approach of a national broadcast network, a cable network, and a streaming service. The groundwork has already been established for a sizable media deal. 

Who's the national broadcast partner? The CW 

https://pac-12.com/news/2024/5/14/pac-12-football-be-featured-nationally-across-cw-network-fox-sports-2024.aspx

Who's the cable network? TNT

 https://www.dailylobo.com/article/2024/07/breaking-down-the-mountain-west-broadcast-deal-with-tnt

Quote

The NBA wanted a “sizable increase” to the average $2.66 billion TNT annually pays for broadcast rights, according to the New York Times. With competitors like NBC and Amazon, TNT has seemingly dropped out of the race for NBA broadcast rights and will bring their attention elsewhere.

And the streaming service? Either Amazon or Apple 

Seattle-based Amazon already has Thursday Night NFL football so why not add Saturday PAC 12 games to their live sports inventory? I'm sure California-based Apple will also want a bite of the action too since they were already involved in the last round of failed PAC 12 negotiations. It wouldn't surprise me if a competitive bidding war developed between the two streaming giants. 

[MeanGreenGlory]

56 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Just out of curiosity, let's say it is more money, and you make it, and then it comes to find out that the majority of the gains were covered on streaming, say, Apple, for example. Is that beneficial?

As with all things in life, it's a tradeoff. 

In this scenario, the pro is that you receive more money (in UNT's case, it'd likely be a substantial increase in media revenue if we're talking about going from ~$3M now to $9–$15M per year in the new PAC).

The con is that you receive less linear TV exposure.

So the question becomes: How valuable is the current linear TV exposure? Or, in a more contextual framework, how many new fans would you need to gain from the linear TV exposure in the American to make up the $6–$12M annual gap that you'd be getting in a PAC conference media deal?

I'd argue it would take many years of successful football and basketball play to convert that many linear TV viewers into paying fans to cover the gap. And if we have unsuccessful years of football and/or basketball, the linear TV arguably hurts our perception more. For example, was it good for our brand to get stomped on by Texas Tech on national TV last weekend? I think not.

So if I were the AD/President, and the PAC was offering numbers alongside a committed media partner like Amazon or Apple and the numbers were indeed $9–$15M per year, I'd take that leap of faith in a heartbeat.

Why?

Because now we'd have an additional $6–$12M PER YEAR to invest in the program, which could mean player salaries, funding facility upgrades, doubling down on our own media production to help compensate for the reduced linear TV exposure, etc. 

It would have a big impact in the short term and a massive impact in the long term (anything over 5 years).

Rough math: If the likes of FAU and UAB remain in the American and are receiving $3M per year, they're getting $15M over five years. If we joined the PAC and received $10M per year, that's $50M over five years.

How different would our entire athletic program look in five years if we had an additional $35M to invest? It'd be huge. 

Not to mention, the PAC with the current six plus top of the AAC would be much more likely to have more teams appear in the Big Dance, CFP, etc. which would bring additional funds to the conference.

Overall, a higher dollar PAC media deal is much more effective fuel for growth than the linear TV deal with the American.

Edited 8 hours ago by MeanGreenGlory

[MeanGreenGlory]

On a related note, I happened to hop onto Amazon this morning, and this was literally the homepage for me:

Think about how many eyeballs are seeing this ad across the country right now. If Amazon was the digital streaming partner and they wanted to promote their college games in a similar fashion, even the occasional UNT game ad on the homepage like this would build brand awareness.

[C Rod]

4 minutes ago, MeanGreenGlory said:

Think about how many eyeballs are seeing this ad across the country right now. If Amazon was the digital streaming partner and they wanted to promote their college games in a similar fashion, even the occasional UNT game ad on the homepage like this would build brand awareness.

Exactly. Personally I think Amazon is the way to go because millions of people already subscribe to Amazon Prime for the online shopping and free two day delivery service. The new streaming football content is just an added perk at this point for Amazon Prime subscribers. 

[MeanGreenGlory]

If Memphis, Tulane, and UTSA go to the PAC, and we don’t, it’ll be a colossal fumble for our school and AD. 

[MCMLXXX]

I disagree. If AFA joins the AAC and the payout per school by the PAC is not that much higher than the AAC payout then UTSA can sit on its own island in Texas and we can add Texas State.  The West Coast schools that have the highest values have fled to Conferences with schools primarily located in the Eastern and Central Time Zone. If we move West they first must "Show me (us) the Money!".

[keith]

2 hours ago, MeanGreen22 said:

Sure, I agree with that. But let’s take UNT for example. If you’re not getting a whole lot more in the TV deal, can you afford it? Does the move get more donors to come out of hiding? There is a lot of considerations other than just the increase conference competition is all I’m saying. 

We received $1.13M in conference distributions our first year in the AAC.  Half of the conference members received multiples of that number.  How long does that go on?  It puts us at an untenable competitive disadvantage.  Was that the best we could have done?  Don't know.

Team travel went from $2.898M to $4.329M, an increase of $1.431M.  I doubt travel to the west is materially different than travel to the east, so this number is already baked in.

We paid $1.404M in severence in order to hire Morris.  If Morris was the one we really wanted, tell me he would not have been around this year or next year or the year after.  Was he some super hot commodity that multiple schools were bidding on and going to beat us to the punch?  Was he really worth that premium?  I don't think so.  Bad (and costly) decision by our AD, but fortunately this expense goes away this year.

We pay almost as much for the AD and Support staff $8.432M as we do in coaches salaries $9.223M (a difference of only $791K).  Add in $4.083M of Admin Overhead (wink, wink) and we're up to $12.515M for the AD and Support staff.

There is plenty of money in the AD's budget, we just have a poorly managed Athletic Department.

Edited 7 hours ago by keith

[SMU2006]

If its ten schools its going to be UNLV, Tulane, Memphis, and UTSA.

If its twelve UNT and USF (maybe).

[MCMLXXX]

Similarly, the PAC-12 may be aiming for a world that doesn’t really exist: of high-paying networks with a cash-rich streaming deal supplementing income. The networks have made clear their dance cards are largely filled, and as Crakes points out, there is no guarantee the tech companies are riding over the horizon to save the day.

Can Pac-12 find new media deal win? (msn.com)

[Green Otaku]

2 hours ago, TripleGrad said:

 

Except for the Tech game and UTSA, aren't all this year's UNT games on ESPN+ streaming?

Last year was the same, all ESPN+ unless the opponent had a media outlet.

I don't see how Apple streaming is different from ESPN+ in terms of practical viewership.

 

vs Cal- ESPNU (national)

@ FIU- ESPN+

@ LATech- ESPN+

vs ACU- ESPN+

@Navy- CBSSN

vs Temple- ESPNU

@Tulane- ESPN2

vs Memphis- ESPN+

vs UTSA- ESPN+

@ SMU- ESPN2

@ Tulsa- ESPN+

vs UAB- ESPN+

 

IIRC ESPN has a 10 day window to choose who to pick up where, if we did better we would have been on national coverage more. Tulane had almost every game on ESPN/2 last year.

 

[Jonnyeagle]

18 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

If its ten schools its going to be UNLV, Tulane, Memphis, and UTSA.

If its twelve UNT and USF (maybe).

I know you guys think of yourselves as rich and can afford all this but let's be clear, UTSA is super poor and they will be a big liability on budget and they can hardly pay their travel bills as is.    Hell they can't even fire their shitty men's basketball coach because they can't afford to.  Them signing up for all this additional travel is ludicrous.  That is the ONLY reason their name is coming up out there.

[aprice]

49 minutes ago, Jonnyeagle said:

I know you guys think of yourselves as rich and can afford all this but let's be clear, UTSA is super poor and they will be a big liability on budget and they can hardly pay their travel bills as is.    Hell they can't even fire their shitty men's basketball coach because they can't afford to.  Them signing up for all this additional travel is ludicrous.  That is the ONLY reason their name is coming up out there.

The extra revenue should ease the travel concerns, but everything else I agree with.  Unfortunately, in the current landscape, it doesn't even have to make sense.  UTSA must have god tier PR folks because their name pops up into these conservations by casuals without a second thought.  Their facilities are atrocious, they have no real college game day experience in either football (off-campus aging facility), or basketball (high school gym).  Their ratings aren't any better than ours and neither is their attendance.  You can be sure as shit that once they start losing again, and they will, the alamo dome will go back to feeling like a dystopian nightmare.

Part of me hopes they move to be honest, they will be the doormat of their conference for years to come if they have to compete with programs with much larger budgets and resources.

Edited 5 hours ago by aprice

[NM Green]

If UTSA gets in it will be timing and literally just under the gun. They will ride the spirit of Harris right onto the west coast. But there is really little research being done on this program. 

1. when they win they draw. They are falling back, not fully down but back for the coming years. 
2. my cousin was a volleyball coach there and they struggle to recruit due to budget and facilities. The new money will help but they have a hill to climb. 

UTSA has some serious decision to make if offered. They will cede Texas attention to San Marcos and Austin. They will lose Texas travel destinations for their fans in Houston and Dallas. This is bigger than money and to UTSAs credit they seem to be weighing it all. They will also elevate Texas State when they enter the AAC to play USF FAU the Academies Texas teams and the Carolina schools on a regular basis. Texas State is being pretty stealth right now and they stand to gain biggly if the Runners head out of state.

GMG

[Dannymacfan]

1 minute ago, NM Green said:

If UTSA gets in it will be timing and literally just under the gun. They will ride the spirit of Harris right onto the west coast. But there is really little research being done on this program. 

1. when they win they draw. They are falling back, not fully down but back for the coming years. 
2. my cousin was a volleyball coach there and they struggle to recruit due to budget and facilities. The new money will help but they have a hill to climb. 

UTSA has some serious decision to make if offered. They will cede Texas attention to San Marcos and Austin. They will lose Texas travel destinations for their fans in Houston and Dallas. This is bigger than money and to UTSAs credit they seem to be weighing it all. They will also elevate Texas State when they enter the AAC to play USF FAU the Academies Texas teams and the Carolina schools on a regular basis. Texas State is being pretty stealth right now and they stand to gain biggly if the Runners head out of state.

GMG

Agree on all of your points.  My issue is why not listen to what the Pac 12 has to say if you are UNT?  There was no reason to allow UTSA to command the airwaves on this thing. 

[NM Green]

Oh I agree we should listen to the PAC 12, but I don’t think we were asked. UTSA would be wise to demand the 12 give them a travel partner and I bet they would recommend us over Texas State. 

We should be approaching them with this same conversation whether they think we have a right to voice it or not and we may be their backup plan. It would be good for us to have decisions to make because that means we’re being stealthily considered.

Every single AAC school needs to make clear high demands to even consider a 12 move. The AAC is not CUSA. Get what you want or don’t go.

GMG

[C Rod]

1 hour ago, aprice said:

You can be sure as shit that once they start losing again, and they will, the alamo dome will go back to feeling like a dystopian nightmare.

Sure the building is 31 years old but it's not like the city of San Antonio has left it for dead. SA continues to pump millions of dollars into the facility for improvements. The Alamodome just completed a $20 million dollar facelift for the 2025 Final Four. I haven't been this year but I hear from those who have that it looks great. https://marmonmok.com/projects/alamodome-2025-final-four-renovations/

[wardly]

2 hours ago, Jonnyeagle said:

I know you guys think of yourselves as rich and can afford all this but let's be clear, UTSA is super poor and they will be a big liability on budget and they can hardly pay their travel bills as is.    Hell they can't even fire their shitty men's basketball coach because they can't afford to.  Them signing up for all this additional travel is ludicrous.  That is the ONLY reason their name is coming up out there.

UNT has 3 problems that UTSA doesn't regarding football. SMU,TCU and the Dallas Cowboys. The PAC 6 really only needs 9 programs. USF is a bridge too far and UNT really doesn't have much of a market presence in DFW. If the PAC 6 just gets the 3 programs it wants, Tulane, Memphis, and UTSA it might call it a day. If one or more  of these 3 balk UNT,UNLV,Texas State, and New Mexico could be in play, assuming the AFA moves to the AAC. However it is costing the PAC 6 $25 million per MWC team they poach so they probably would prefer AAC programs that they can buy much cheaper.Just a guess but decisions by all parties should come to a head soon.

[aprice]

2 hours ago, wardly said:

UNT has 3 problems that UTSA doesn't regarding football. SMU,TCU and the Dallas Cowboys. The PAC 6 really only needs 9 programs. USF is a bridge too far and UNT really doesn't have much of a market presence in DFW. If the PAC 6 just gets the 3 programs it wants, Tulane, Memphis, and UTSA it might call it a day. If one or more  of these 3 balk UNT,UNLV,Texas State, and New Mexico could be in play, assuming the AFA moves to the AAC. However it is costing the PAC 6 $25 million per MWC team they poach so they probably would prefer AAC programs that they can buy much cheaper.Just a guess but decisions by all parties should come to a head soon.

I disagree with the SMU and TCU taking potential market share.  Their fan bases really aren't very big, especially SMU which is basically non existent.  The real market share were losing are all of the UT and OU T-shirt fans, but your point still stands.

Fundamentally we have a cultural problem that has been around for decades.  If only a tiny fraction of our alumni base are willing to represent the brand, there's zero chance of taking share from the average T-shirt fan.   Because of the PUF, the only 2 universities that your average normie likes to rep is UT and A&M.  I know for certain that "stolen prestige" is a massive reason why these people exist.  They get to walk around with UT shirts while having no affiliation with the school to feel good about accomplishments they've never earned. We all know these people.  I'm skeptical its even possible to tap into this crowd anytime soon, but until our own graduates show pride, its a non-starter to start taking their share.

I am optimistic though about slow change thanks to the TUF, perceptions should slowly improve.  The problem is UNT's perception as second choice commuter school is deeply ingrained in the minds of most of these people we're trying to take share from.  Why associate with a "loser" when you can just buy a t-shirt from wal-mart and be a winner

Most the large programs have monster budgets not because of their alums, its the t-shirt fan viewership driving the media dollars and by extension, conference realignment.  (unless you are bankrolled by billionaires)

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by aprice