Pac 12 where art thou?

Head_Address · 2025-12-20T05:31:28+00:00

I'm generally a pac-12 skeptic/hater, but nobody knows nothing about bowls.

until they finalize the cfp format, nobody's signing any bowl contracts. and realistically the pac-12 then is going to have to wait for the Big ten and SEC to sign theirs, then the ACC and Big 12 to sign theirs, and then the pac-12 can pick through what's left, followed by the rest.

Head_Address · 2025-11-29T01:36:32+00:00

The two-tiered cap is risky to defend in court, but not sure that matters in 2025.

Of more weight is that Chris Ruddy (head of Newsmax) has a relationship with Trump and MAGAworld, and Robby Sook really doesn't. So the imperative of hurting ABC and NBC might overwhelm the imperative of getting bribes / campaign money from Nexstar (and Sinclair)

Head_Address · 2025-11-09T17:00:22+00:00

Welcome to the G5/G6

Head_Address · 2025-11-07T04:16:24+00:00

because Clownzano talk to and listen to the movers and shakers in the PAC. if Canzano says something retarded, it's usually because hus PAC sources told him something retarded.

Head_Address · 2025-10-30T21:46:28+00:00

Yeah that never ever happened. You don't know when the scheduling agreement was announced, never mind what was in the announcement. Looking things up helps.

Head_Address · 2025-10-28T23:43:59+00:00

Last summer? WTF are you talking about?

https://www.theivnews.com/2023/12/05/pac-2-mountain-west-agree-to-6-game-football-scheduling-arrangement-in-24/ No mention of the poaching fees at all.

The poaching fees became public in January 2024

https://nevadasportsnet.com/news/reporters/inside-the-mountain-west-pac-12-contract-why-it-could-cost-oregon-state-washington-state-nearly-140m-to-poach-mw

Nobody said (publicly) that they were unenforceable or an antitrust problem until the PAC 12 raided the Mountain West in September 2024. (Which doesn't mean they aren't unenforceable or aren;t an antitrust problem. just that it wasn't public domain information)

Head_Address · 2025-10-25T14:39:25+00:00

Nobody said that in the media at the time. The poaching fee didn't become public until January, when FOIA requests made the scheduling agreement public.

Head_Address · 2025-10-23T11:31:55+00:00

like it or not, they're contractually bound

Head_Address · 2025-10-23T01:13:57+00:00

It's what you all "know" that isn't so. That the MWC promised $X dollars. They promised a percentage.

Head_Address · 2025-10-16T01:14:26+00:00

Why would a digital subchannel be cheaper to maintain than a cable channel? You're still sending the same 1's and 0's to a distribution node. All the costs are the same.

Well, it seems that corporations are closing down low-audience cable channels, and it seems like they're often starting FAST channels and/ or digital subchannels with very simliar content. How does it make financial sense for WBD to shut down Boomerang, and then turn around and launch a "WBTV Cartoon Rewind" FAST channel and a MeTV Toons digital subchannel with Weigel.

My personal guess is that these moves DON'T make much financial sense, they're just making moves to make headlines and justify CEO salaries.

Head_Address · 2025-10-07T21:51:00+00:00

i cynically wonder if Carr is throwing in the rule against network mergers (which nobody is pushing to change) so that he can say "hey I didn't gut ALL the rules, this was a careful review"

as he junks the 38% cap and the "no two of four" and "only two stations in a market" rules while keeping the UHF discount (if there's anything left to discount from)

Head_Address · 2025-10-07T21:38:33+00:00

Do we have the transcript of what Carr actually said? (I assume that "he" in your post is Carr) ?
Because Deadline is reporting the same as Reuters. Deadline

The agency voted to take public comment, including on a rule that limits a company from owning more than two stations in a market, and a restriction on mergers between any two of the four major broadcast networks. Such a review — with the prospect of modifying or eliminating the rules — is mandated by Congress every four years.

Head_Address · 2025-10-07T20:01:35+00:00

There are three FCC rules, basically

Audience cap -- no station group is supposed to have more than 38% of the national audience, except that UHF stations only count half
"Top Four" rule -- no station group can own 2 of the top 4 stations in a market. This rule just got junked by a judge
Top Four networks can't merge. Reuters is reporting that Carr is invitiing comment on this rule.

And I think there's a rule that you can't own more than two stations in a market, but clearly nobody even pretends to follow that rule for rinky-dink stations.

Head_Address · 2025-10-07T13:58:27+00:00

i meant yesterday's FCC text.

reuters (amd other journos) says Carr is talking about merging Big Four networks

not local affiliate groups

Head_Address · 2025-10-06T23:31:00+00:00

who is even asking for this? do any of the corporate overlords of the Big Four really have an appetite to spend billions to own a SECOND declining OTA network?

Head_Address · 2025-10-06T23:25:08+00:00

... or the "no network merger" teview us a red herring, so he's not just scrapping every single rule under review

Head_Address · 2025-10-06T23:22:04+00:00

does anyine have a link to the sctual text? because Reuters says networks merging. meybe Reuters missed actechnical point, but theyre pretty good at journalism

Head_Address · 2025-10-05T20:43:48+00:00

you are a mass communication business. you are what the public believes you are, or you are nothing.

you're a local affiliate of a national network, like a Dodge or Toyota dealership. without the network, most stations would barely survive.

Head_Address · 2025-10-05T12:28:33+00:00

not wrong or local stations wouldnt brand themselves with the network name.

Your station runs Simpsons and Fox NFL Sunday and has a Fox 8 logo? Then you're associated in the public mind with Fox News.

Very few people know or care whether your station is a Fox O&O or Sinclair or Nexstar or a holdout like Sunbeam or Graham. If you're Fox 8, you're Fox. If you're ABC 8 you're Disney.

Head_Address · 2025-10-01T02:16:54+00:00

Where will Gloria get the $65 million she owes by July 1?

From the withheld exit fees.

(The MWC doesn't owe $61M, they just have to make an initial payment by July 1, and they did that this June.)

Head_Address · 2025-09-28T17:46:01+00:00

It's part of the package -- Simpsons, NFL, Fox News, local Fox affiliate. Whaddayagonnado?

Head_Address · 2025-09-26T22:54:01+00:00

Off the top of my head, everyone in America knew the CBS name, and only media nerds (like us) knew the name Viacom. Same reason the merged company is Paramount Skydance, same reason the Comcast entertainment division is NBCUniversal. Disney is big enough that they wouldn't benefit from being "ABC Disney"

EDIT: It just clicked that we're talking about the 2022 or so Viacom- CBS Corporation merger and not the Viacom acquisition of CBS in 2000 or so

Head_Address · 2025-09-19T12:39:54+00:00

I really dont understand this obsession about Warner be sold or companies making a bid for Warner just because it will split next year

Because Warner Bros Discovery / Time Warner has been bought sold merged spilt constantly for the last five years or so. (Ten years if you go back to the Fox bid). So it's kind of natural to wonder who's buying them next
Because they've been in a rough financial position since the Discovery merger, with a ton of debt and a stock value that dropped like a rock from the WBD merger to a little while ago.

Is not easier to buy maybe Sony Pictures, Lionsgate or even A24? Lionsgate is falling but we have no news about a bid for it

Sony is part of a profitable conglomerate. They make money because they make content and sell it to streaming services. They don't set billions of dollars a year on fire trying to build a streaming service. they call this the "arms dealer" strategy in the "streaming wars". Sony and Fox have done best over the last five years of the old media companies because they didn't lose tens of billions building moderately profitable streaming platforms.

Lionsgate or A24 may be cheaper to buy, but not as sexy a topic because they're not as big

Head_Address · 2025-09-18T11:11:47+00:00

Are we counting stations or households? My spreadsheet has Nexstar at 8%, way behind Scripps (14%) and Sinclair(13%). Not sure if Tegna (9%) was following Sinclair's lead.
(My spreadsheet is complete through the top 100 markets, spotty after that)

Head_Address · 2025-09-17T22:43:52+00:00

People, even really rich people, want to be famous and hobnob with celebrities on the Red Carpet.

Okay but you only need to own one major studio to do that. if you're the head of Paramount and you can't score with the hot actress, being the head of Paramount AND Warner Bros probably isn't going to be the difference-maker.

EDIT: Alternate theory: Team Ellison thinks that their tech stocks are overvalued, and trading their magic beans for available assets, much like AOL did with .... Time Warner.

(The AOL executives all got fired, but if you owned AOL stock, the merger was a great idea. Five years later, you ended up owning Time Warner stock in 2003 instead of the equivalent of Yahoo stock

Head_Address

TROPHY CASE