Hotline mailbag: Pros and cons of the Pac-12 partnering with Apple, expansion odds, merger options, backup plans and more

*** Please note: Several topics related to Pac-12 media rights and expansion will be answered separately, in forthcoming articles.

(Some questions have been edited for clarity and brevity.)

Could one look at a potential Apple TV deal as a much better version of the Pac-12 Network? — @Cargoman0363

In some ways, a media rights deal with Apple could constitute a merger.

Our sense all along was that whatever streaming service partnered with the conference would make use of the Pac-12 Networks’ first-class production facilities.

Given that Apple doesn’t produce its own content — it uses the MLB Network for the Friday night baseball broadcasts — the Pac-12’s existing technological infrastructure (and staff) feels like a fit.

(The conference is moving out of San Francisco this summer and has leased a 42,000-square-foot complex in San Ramon to house its production facility. That’s 45 miles from Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino.)

In all other ways, there are no comparisons. Apple rules the world; the Pac-12 Networks aren’t even available at sports bars in San Francisco.

If Pac-12 content were available on Apple TV+, anyone anywhere with an iPhone would have access via the app.

We wrote Thursday about commissioner George Kliavkoff’s goal “that our content should be available to any piece of glass connected to the internet.”

Apple TV+ certainly fits that profile.

Two additional thoughts:

— One of the most interesting aspects of a deal with Apple would be the recruiting component. What are blue-chip prospects from coast-to-coast doing all day, every day? Looking at their iPhones.

To what extent would the conference be able to parlay a deal with Apple into a small-screen recruiting bonanza?

We cannot begin to guess (Ted Lasso, meet Bill Walton) but it’s something to monitor if a deal unfolds.

— As we have mentioned previously (numerous times), any distribution deal that places all Pac-12 content on a streaming service, whether it’s Apple or Amazon or ESPN+, is a risky strategy.

The top football games must be widely available on linear television via broadcast and cable networks.

Many see Apple TV’s entrance into the negotiations as a bad thing. It is the richest company on the planet, dwarfing Amazon, Disney/ESPN, etc. They have one underperforming service, their TV. However, they have added MLB and MLS already, so one wonders if they plan on doing big things. — @flintaeroinc

It’s true that Apple’s market cap is more than 10 times that of Disney, and that Apple seems intent on building its portfolio of live sports, which drive engagement and command advertising dollars like few other products in the media space.

(Barrons recently called live sports the “Next Big Battle in the Streaming Wars.”)

Also, I would not assume Apple has recently entered the negotiations. The company has been an option all along. Heck, Apple had preliminary discussions with Pac-12 executives years ago.

There has been immense speculation about the specifics of the Pac-12 media rights saga, but only a handful of conference executives really know the details.

That said, we’ll repeat: The Pac-12 needs a connection point to linear television, and it needs a connection to ESPN specifically.

Access to the games for mainstream sports fans is vital, of course. But so is the contractual relationship. The analysts on College GameDay, for example, are much more likely to talk about Pac-12 teams, players and coaches if the network is distributing Pac-12 content.

The conference knows that reality all too well. Under the terms of the previous media contract, in the 2000s, Pac-10 basketball games were not on ESPN.

And so the ESPN studio shows didn’t talk about the Pac-10.

The coaches were frustrated, recruiting suffered, and the conference vowed to have a presence on the network for the contract cycle that began in 2012.

Tell me I’m not going to have to subscribe to Apple TV to watch my Ducks. — @johndunagan

It might not be Apple TV+, but you will have to subscribe to one of the streaming platforms.

Maybe it’s Amazon or ESPN+. Or maybe it’s a streamer we hadn’t considered, like Hulu.

I don’t know how the negotiations will unfold, but there’s a decent chance the Pac-12’s media contract will feature a surprise or two.

And there is a 10,000 percent chance that at least some, and perhaps most football games will be on a streaming service.

When are we really going to have a media rights deal done? As a Pac-12 fan, what an emotional roller coaster. — @GAllen91723605

If the conference doesn’t have a deal by the middle of March, the situation could turn fraught.

That doesn’t mean everything needs to be official in the next three weeks, because there are three pieces to resolve: the media rights contract; the grant of rights agreement that binds the schools together; and the expansion component, which is closely tied to the media rights deal.

But at the very least, the presidents need to have agreed in principle to a contract by that point.

Current odds on the Pac-12 expanding, and how many schools will they add? — @Mmarion8

When will San Diego State be in the Pac-12? — @Ian115798211

Our view of expansion seems to change by the week, but I would place the likelihood of the Pac-12 adding two teams at 60 percent.

And if the conference does expand, there’s a 99 percent chance it only adds two schools (not four) and a 90 percent chance those two schools are San Diego State and SMU.

Again, we should know that piece of the puzzle within a month.

Does a Pac-12/Big 12 merger keep the conferences relevant in the era of super-conferences? And how likely will a merger occur? I would hate for some programs to be left behind. — @UCFKnightsFan18

Do you foresee a merger with the ACC in five or eight years, once this initial TV package is completed in order to stabilize the Pac-12 and whatever remaining ACC members will be around after both TV deals are finished? — @UACatManDo

The Hotline proposed an alliance between the Pac-12 and the Big 12 four years ago (almost to the day) because we believed the conferences would be stronger for the long haul by combining their football inventory.

And we still feel that way, but it doesn’t appear any type of partnership is looming. The Big 12 has no need with a TV deal signed into the 2030s, and the Pac-12 has no desire.

Meanwhile, a merger with the ACC is unlikely because any newcomers to that league would have to sign away their media rights until 2036 — that’s far too long to be tied down given the pace of change in college athletics.

The Hotline laid out our vision for the future of the Pac-12, and college football, in September.

Then as now, we see the end of the 2020s as the next rupture point. The Big Ten will begin negotiating another media contract and cast an expansion eye toward the coasts … both coasts.

We have no doubt that Fox, which controls the Big Ten’s media strategy, is eyeing the state of Florida for potential expansion targets.

If the ACC collapses, some schools will move into the Big Ten, and some will head to the SEC.

Eventually, there will be three conferences: The Big Ten and SEC, each with 20-24 teams; and a third league (of 24 or more schools) that houses the Big 12 and a handful of Pac-12 and ACC schools.

How many schools are working on a backup plan? — @LiveInHothAK

All of them.

Every remaining Pac-12 school began formulating backup plans last summer, and they have undoubtedly kept the specifics handy.

I would not use the term Plan B to describe the strategy — it’s more like Plan C.

They will only flee if there is no option to stay.

You seem to be fairly certain that SMU will be added. Do you think that an invitation could be contingent on re-establishing a baseball program? If not contingent, do you think SMU could still decide to do so? — @bowlof_rednblue

I have no idea — that topic hasn’t come up in conversations.

Colorado does not have a baseball program, so I suspect it’s not essential.

With regard to SMU’s plans to add baseball regardless, we have zero insight.

I am confused. All these years we have heard how important market size is. Comparatively, the Pac 12 has larger, more robust markets than the Big 12. So how on earth are we NOT beating them when it comes to the contract? Is everything we’ve been told about market size just a myth? — Jacob Johnsen

First, we don’t know the Pac-12’s media rights valuation — that’s one of several unanswered questions. The conference could very well land a more lucrative deal.

We have stated throughout the process that the two leagues are similar in value. Whether the Pac-12 is a few million dollars per school (per year) ahead or behind doesn’t make much difference materially.

(Big 12 schools make more in media revenue than Pac-12 schools now.)

I could see the Pac-12’s valuation landing anywhere from $28 million (per school) to $34 million — a 10 percent delta either way.

The market piece is one of several components to the valuation piece, along with brand power and competitive success.

A decade ago, markets matter more, because media dollars were largely based on the number of cable homes in each state.

That’s no longer the primary driver. Ratings, which incorporate brand and success, also matter.

Why are the top-tier programs in the SEC and Big Ten subsidizing lower-tier programs by staying in their respective conferences when they could easily form their own league and make even more money for themselves? — @tombagjr

College sports is one giant subsidy in three parts:

— Big conferences subsidize the smaller leagues across all NCAA divisions.

— Big schools subsidize the small schools within a specific conference.

— Football subsidizes all sports (except basketball) within each athletic department.

While it makes some sense for Ohio State and Michigan to join an elite conference and leave Purdue and Minnesota behind — in the SEC, it would be Alabama and Georgia leaving Mississippi State and Arkansas behind — the politics (both state and university) wouldn’t allow it.

When will the coaching market crash? Could you foresee a salary cap for coaches? At some point, the business model of collegiate athletics has to burst. — @ryan_silva88

Any crash would come as a result of players being deemed employees and receiving paychecks directly from their athletic departments.

That would squeeze the available cash, prompting a downturn in spending on coaches and facilities.

I expect that to happen in the second half of the decade, and it will change the financial structure of major college football and the recruiting component.

It’s something that should be accounted for when making strategic decisions … like media rights contracts.

Are any Big 12 games going to be on the ESPN+ streaming service on their new contract, or are they going to all be on linear television? Big 12 fans seem to be looking down their nose at Pac-12 streaming possibility, but I thought some of their content was going to be streaming, too. — @DuckFanJay

Yes, Big 12 football games will be on ESPN+, which is a streaming service just like Apple and Amazon.

Exactly how much Big 12 inventory will appear on ESPN+ has not been made public, but I expect a significant amount.

The SEC will dominate broadcast windows on both ABC and ESPN.

Which teams will play for the Pac-12 championship? — @DavePdxdawg

Washington vs. USC.

Book it.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline