Its not. You do not need an apple tv subscription to purchase the mls package, though you do get a discount.
Last edited:
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
They overpriced the mls package. You can get peacock for 5 bucks a month and watch the premier league, or pay 100 a year for espn plus and get la liga and the bundesliga. Why they thought 100 bucks just for the mls was going to fly is beyond me.
Elasticity of demand. People who are willing to pay for MLS are going to pay regardless of the price. For those who aren’t, you could give it away and it wouldn’t matter.
Victory
Well-Known Member
Right that’s how I see it, too. Their preference is 12 teams but they could pull it off with 11.
SDSU is a lock. SMU, I’m not sure anymore. We would be their basketball travel partner. 1h 50m flight. Something seems off about it though. Maybe they’re just FB. Not sure.
I’m expecting some kind of curveball in all of this that we don’t see coming.
well then, but still.. I'd rather have apple tv to go with it so it at least feels like I'm getting a good amount of content. Even if they raise the price a bit
and then if victory's scenario plays out, gotta subscribe to like 4 different services will be annoying, but whatever anything is better than P12N
I'd be shocked if the tv deal ends up paying $36-38 million per school.
Don't see enough demand for the content.
Eleven can work for Football, there does not have to be a bye week, rather each school has a game with probably the ACC. I would use the Vegas stadium for as many big games as possible because when you send 1 team from one league to another, a neutral field is fairer.
12 in basketball again works as it always has
I could buy into all of this.
SDSU would have to add a TON of value, though, because the amount of inventory doesn't change going from 10 to 11 teams, since there will still only be 5 games. They need that 12th team to provide the extra game I think.
I'm also confused about the idea of a "travel partner" for basketball that keeps getting thrown around. Nobody is actually travelling together anywhere. There are no cost savings.
It's not about with whom you travel, it's about to where you travel. Two locations close to each other to minimize the travel on each road trip. You go to Salt Lake and Boulder on a Thursday/Saturday road trip instead of to Boulder, then off to Seattle, then back home, for example.
The cost savings for the travel partner is definitely for football, specifically the equipment truck.
Their major miscalculation IMO is the insistence that you either get EVERY GAME EVERY WEEK or basically nothing. I think I've posted elsewhere that I am a somewhat casual Portland Timbers fan, and I'd be interested in a sub that was just Timbers game. For example, MLB.tv used to allow you to purchase a season pass to every out of market game for something like $150 or a season pass for just one team for like $75-80.
I suspect that most MLS fans are like that- every once in a while there's a game they want to watch not involving their team, but largely they only will watch matches involving their team.
Eh, you're talking about an extra 1hr -1:30 of flight time of SMU being CU's partner rather than Utah. Is what it is. Not that big of a deal.
I mean, I get that going from Seattle or Eugene to Dallas is a brutal drive, but that doesn't really have anything to do with a travel partner. It's just the reality of adding teams that are geographically further away from the traditional footprint.
That’s a factor though in adding a new member isn’t it? SMU has to add enough value to the conference that the media deal will increase to cover the added expenses every other conference member is going to incur getting to Dallas.
Well, instead of everyone having to travel to SoCal at least once, if not twice a year, they now only have to go once or maybe not at all. The other possible trip would be to Dallas.
This really feels like a completely irrelevant concern.
This would be a great deal for the Pac 12
Back when the B1G added PSU, they were at 11. Not football scheduling, but the Big East is at 11.
That said, I expect to expand to 12 or 14.
It's definitely possible, but I think they need more inventory than 10 teams provides, which is why they are likely going to expand in the first place.
SMU versus NORTH TEXAS?
Except that the media deal being negotiated already assumes the LA schools are out. So it’s not close to the biggest concern but if adding a school will increase operating expenses for the other 10 or 11 then that school needs to drive enough revenue to at least offset that added cost IMO.
SMUNT.
Pac-12 unlikely to reach media rights deal with more than 50% of games airing on TV, long-time consultant says
Time continues to run out on the conference finding a viable option for exposure on linear television
www.cbssports.com
Big12 propaganda or not, will Arizona's president sign on for less than 50% linear VS a guaranteed minimum of 70% linear ?
"I'm at an absolute loss how NBC, CBS, ESPN, ABC or Fox gets [the Pac-12] to 50 [percent]," said Williams, a Washington D.C.-based, seven-time Emmy Award-winning producer who helped develop five different regional sports networks throughout a career that began in 1977.
Would having a large amount of content on ESPN+'s streaming platform be more acceptable to the Pac-12 than having games on Apple or Amazon? This is, of course, assuming ESPN is still involved in talks. To put the Pac-12 predicament in perspective: The Big 12 will have a minimum of 70% of its games on linear platforms in its new media rights deal.
The PAC12 should have been all over Houston from the jump, another bonehead move
When the Big12 got kicked in the nuts, we also should have got Kansas, bonehead
So now I am shopping for anyone.
Give UNT $10mil / $15mil / $20mil / $25mil
Very large Dallas area R1 University with Diversity
Isn't the difference between streaming and "linear" broadcast diminishing substantially? Hard to believe it won't continue to fall over the next decade (contract period). If the money to each school is locked in/guaranteed, what does the 50% "broadcast" line really matter? We've had "PAC12 Only 'Broadcasts'" which are about as low-quality, low-viewer as you can have for--what?--a decade? As long as all of us have a solid way to watch each game, our weekly "eyeballs" on our games won't impact us financially. And as a matter of broader-public-interest, we will have more eyeballs on our games under HCP going forward than we've had over the past decade, won't we? We could be one of the big draws to the "broadcast" umbrella of the PAC12, going forward.
I'm sure I'm missing something in these negotiations. I really only care whether I can watch the games easily now that I cut the cord. It's all about my needs. lol
I'm sure I'm missing something in these negotiations. I really only care whether I can watch the games easily now that I cut the cord. It's all about my needs. lol
Last edited:
Well- to be fair, ITB only says what he wants to happen, not what he thinks will happen.
This whole thing is fascinating to me.
Nobody knows what will be the final outcome.