1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

mountain network /pac12 network...

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by sticketfan, May 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aug 20, 2012 #761 of 1671
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Really? You think so....so let's just assume Oregon fits 50K into their stadium, they get an away game this week, and let's assume the avg person buys 2-4 tickets, so use 3. Then say of those 20K household 1/3 have Directv, so that's what, 7K or so fans x 6 away teams, so 42K fans call in one weekend. These are just the dedicated fans that go to the games with season tickets. It doesn't count all those other households that don't have tickets. A higher % of fans with tickets will call on the away games. Viacom has less audience in one showing than the Pac 12 will generate in a weekend. series of games.

    Leadership means finding solutions not just saying NO.
     
  2. Aug 20, 2012 #762 of 1671
    superdeluxe

    superdeluxe Mentor

    31
    0
    Jul 31, 2012
    Directv is in a position to gain many switch overs from central/eastern markets that are not picking up p12
     
  3. Aug 20, 2012 #763 of 1671
    shyvoodoo

    shyvoodoo AllStar

    122
    7
    Jun 24, 2011
    I'm gonna wait it out.. I personally think they (D*) are just hammering out the final details. Hey I'm optimistic...

    Ben
    Voodoo
     
  4. Aug 21, 2012 #764 of 1671
    superdeluxe

    superdeluxe Mentor

    31
    0
    Jul 31, 2012
    Take tweet with grain of salt:

    “@BlitzTRice: Rumors that Dish Network has reached a deal with Pac-12 Networks. Rumored $121/yr. Part of premium ESPN package. #RUMOR”
     
  5. Aug 21, 2012 #765 of 1671
    cjrleimer

    cjrleimer Godfather

    481
    1
    Nov 16, 2004
    If its true, hell has frozen over. Of course this guy could be swanni's long lost brother :D
     
  6. Aug 21, 2012 #766 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Leadership means finding the RIGHT solution, even if it includes NO. No great leader has ever succeeded by just being a yes-man.
     
  7. Aug 21, 2012 #767 of 1671
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    I realize I am late to the table, but I still cannot understand what the PAC 12 is going to do with 7 channels. With only 12 schools, three channels should be enough to carry every game (two games per channel). Even if (when) they expand to 16 teams, four channels should be sufficient, and those would only be fully utilized for a few hours per day.

    The SEC does not have its own channel, yet with their deals with ESPN, CBS, Fox Sports Networks, and local television stations within the SEC market, nearly every football and basketball game, and many baseball, softball, and gymnastics events and some swimming, tennis, and women's volleyball (the SEC does not sponsor men's volleyball), and all of the football and basketball coaches shows are already broadcast. The SEC has excellent coverage without having any dedicated channels. With one or two additional channels in addition to the deals they already have in place, the SEC could broadcast every event in every sport. There is no need for any conference to have seven channels. Three or four channels would be more than sufficient.
     
  8. Aug 21, 2012 #768 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Yeah, they have a really really bold plan.

    But it isn't really about the number of games and how many channels you would need for them. Their model is setup somewhat differently, they want to bring a truly localized channel to a region. For instance, the NorCal channel will televise Stanford Field Hockey games, which is one of the sports they excel in (and I happen to like).

    So the six channels are designed for 6 regions with 2 schools each, with programming of somewhat regional interest, not necessarily designed for an x amount of football games and an x amount of basketball games.

    Of course only 3 of the 10+ sports they are planning to air are starting in the coming 2 weeks, (or have started) so it is a little hard to judge based on the current programming schedule which is a lot of the same with live sports mixed in.
     
  9. Aug 21, 2012 #769 of 1671
    kick4fun

    kick4fun Godfather

    487
    6
    Aug 9, 2006
    This coming from Jon Wilner

    "Having pieced together information from various sources, it appears the Pac-12 and DirecTV are close to a carriage deal.

    Does that mean an agreement in the next few hours … or days … or next week? I’m not sure of the exact timing. And as with any negotiation, last-minute snags are always possible.

    But it sure seems like only that — a last-minute snag — will prevent the two sides from reaching a deal prior to the start of the football season.

    If/when they do partner up, it won’t take long for the Pac12Nets to begin airing on DirecTV — the groundwork is already being laid for signal transmission, according to sources.


    A deal with DirecTV could be the only hope for thousands of Pac-12 fans in at least two major metro areas across the country."

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...t-neuheisels-debut-and-the-objectivity-issue/
     
  10. Aug 21, 2012 #770 of 1671
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    I am not one of those who only watches football and basketball. I was a NCAA swimming referee for 20 years. I understand the PAC 12 are planning to televise all sports, and I commend them for that, but that still will not fill seven channels. The latest SEC contract with ESPN has achieved some coverage for all sports and total coverage for some sports without any stand-alone SEC channel.

    I do not even live in SEC territory, yet I could watch every Kentucky football and men's basketball game (including Big Blue Madness, the Blue/White scrimmage, the two preseason exhibition games, and one open practice other than Big Blue Madness), about half of the women's basketball games, women's gymnastic meets, baseball games, and softball games, and a few tennis matches, women's volleyball matches, and swim meets plus every football and men's and women's basketball coaches shows- all without any stand-alone SEC channel. I did need the sports pack to do that, but the point is that the SEC manages to get good coverage of all of their sports without any dedicated channel.

    Each sport for each school only has a few competitions per week. One network for four schools I could understand, but one network for two schools will amount to a lot of dead air to fill.
     
  11. Aug 21, 2012 #771 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Or a lot of repetition. The numbers do not add up, I agree. But we are viewing from a satellite view where all the channels are available everywhere. The concept is really aimed at cable where you will mostly get two channels. One aimed to your locale and one cross conference.
     
  12. Aug 21, 2012 #772 of 1671
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Discuss the points? You don't even read what is written and then blow off about something completely irrelevant. What points are you even referring to? Every single time anything is posted you don't read it and come off with something never even said. Prime example - somehow you think I said an entire stadium is the number of customers....not even close...had you even read it then you wouldn't have mouthed off.....and then we wouldn't even be in this stupid back and forth. So the moral? Read what is written rather than fill in the blanks with your own blubber. You are your own worst enemy. I don't have time for this and you.
     
  13. Aug 21, 2012 #773 of 1671
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    That would still work, and probably will work better, with four schools per channel. Each region would get their local school (plus three others) on one channel and the national feed on the other.
     
  14. Aug 21, 2012 #774 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Numbers. Sure. They went with the easy division. The PAC 12 has a pretty unique feature in that the schools are geographically paired.

    LA. UCLA and USC
    Bay Area. Stanford and Cal
    Oregon. Oregon and OSU
    Washington. Washington and WSU
    Arizona. Arizona and ASU
    Rockies. Colorado and Utah

    I think it is overkill myself. BTN manages the same thing with one channel plus game overflows. And I think it is better long term to have a conference look rather than a local one but those are the choices they made.
     
  15. Aug 21, 2012 #775 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    I totally agree with that statement. But their model isn't built to fill 7 channels with sports, their model is built on a similar concept as the regional sports networks.

    The way the model is designed is that a region will get their regional network, and the national network. This model works extremely well with cable based tv providers, as each region really only has to offer 2 channels: 1 channel that guarantees coverage of everything local, and 1 national channel that shows additional sports deemed important for the conference as a whole.

    Of course this model can also be implemented with satellite providers using a zip code check, but satellite as a technology would still require carriage of all 7 networks on the satellites. Additionally, we as satellite subscribers might have access to all 7 networks that way, and looking at it from that perspective, it looks to be way too much channels for the amount of sports.

    But if you look at it from the cable model it was designed for (that is: 2 channels, 1 regional, 1 national), the model actually works really well.

    With the exception of Utah/Colorado, the geographical location of all the universities is a big decision factor in choosing this type of model. Another deciding factor is that with this model, cable providers only have to add 2 channels to their lineup to bring ALL local sports to a region.

    In any case, the model is done. It is live on cable systems. Nothing is going to change that, at least not in the coming 2, 3 years.
     
  16. Aug 21, 2012 #776 of 1671
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Discuss the topic and DO NOT discuss each other.

    :backtotop

    Mike
     
  17. Aug 21, 2012 #777 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Thanks :)

    On topic:

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...t-neuheisels-debut-and-the-objectivity-issue/

    Our favorite blogger (for this topic anyways) has posted some more stuff. Nothing really new from what we already knew yesterday, but some interesting stuff nonetheless. It's a blog/opinion, so grains of salts are needed.
     
  18. Aug 21, 2012 #778 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Not a lot new. Loved the comment that Comcast and Cox are in the know of the directv negotiations. Hah!
     
  19. Aug 21, 2012 #779 of 1671
    TravelFan1

    TravelFan1 Legend

    233
    9
    Apr 1, 2009
    That to me would mean that the PAC nets would show up in sixto's report tomorrow or shortly after.
     
  20. Aug 21, 2012 #780 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Yeah. As we have seen with ION, (and I believe beIN based on their responses when the test feed was already up), test feeds can go "live to test" before the contract is signed. That way they can turn it on any time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page