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

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Athlon646464, Jun 29, 2013.

  1. Oct 9, 2013 #1041 of 2940
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I don't agree. USC is loaded with talent. The sanctions did not hurt them. In fact, they even "recruited" a player from another school on sanctions. They have not done well because Lane Kiffin is a bad coach.
     
  2. Oct 9, 2013 #1042 of 2940
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    322
    24
    Apr 16, 2012
    There is also only one pure Big Ten game on the list, zero pure Big 12 games, zero pure ACC games, and zero pure anything else games. Just sayin'.


    Sandra
     
  3. Oct 9, 2013 #1043 of 2940
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    322
    24
    Apr 16, 2012
    This is only true in the context that the SEC is the ONLY 1st tier BCS conference, and all the rest (Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, Pac 12, etc.) make up the second tier.


    Sandra
     
  4. Oct 9, 2013 #1044 of 2940
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,345
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Well, yes, but what are you saying? I do see a number of pure SEC games.

    As a complete aside, if you were to omit the four or five lines before your typed name, and eliminate the name as it's a repeat of your handle, it'd make replies easier and take up less space on a page.
     
  5. Oct 9, 2013 #1045 of 2940
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    322
    24
    Apr 16, 2012
    You have the ability to edit the post you're quoting, so please feel free.


    Sandra
     
  6. Oct 9, 2013 #1046 of 2940
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,568
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    How about Alabama Georgia, Alabama LSU, Texas A&M Alabama, Florida LSU, Georgia Florida, and South Carolina LSU. That is 6 pure SEC games to add to the one pure Big 10 game (Michigan Ohio State)
     
  7. Oct 9, 2013 #1047 of 2940
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,345
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Of course. But you're making work for those who are diligent about trimming posts.
     
  8. Oct 9, 2013 #1048 of 2940
    BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    514
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    That is exactly my point. USC is loaded with talent.

    They had to hope recruits chose them, even though they were not allowed to go to bowl games.

    Getting the recruits to go there was/is only the beginning of the challenge. They are still operating with 10 fewer scholarships per year than every other school, thanks to NCAA sanctions.

    The fact that you and I agree that despite all of this, they are loaded with talent, indicates that USC would be very good, top 10 good, without all of the sanctions holding them back.

    And that, of course, means there would be a lot more national interest in USC games.

    If USC already had the second highest rated game last season (highest rated on ABC) then what would the ratings have looked like if USC was undefeated and ranked in the top 10 when they played Oregon or Stanford?
     
  9. Oct 9, 2013 #1049 of 2940
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The bowl ban is over. They were bowl eligible last year. It was post 2010 and post 2011. As for losing scholarships, they had three deep at 4 star recruits prior to the scholarship reduction and still are at least two deep in 4 and 5 star recruits. The third team doesn't play. And somehow, in the middle of these "horrible" sanctions, they were able to add a player who was starting at another sanctioned school.

    In other words, the sanctions are NOT holding them back. Their coach held them back. There is ZERO reason why, with the talent they have, they should be as bad as they are. Pat Haden agrees with this.
     
  10. Oct 9, 2013 #1050 of 2940
    BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    514
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    I know the bowl ban is over now. But the players starting for them right now were recruited knowing that they were not immediately bowl eligible. Could they have possibly got a few upgrades if they could promise immediate Rose Bowl contention?

    We are in agreement that USC is loaded with talent. No need to point out to me that they have talent.

    Where we disagree is that you seem to think the 10 scholarships they would have if the NCAA wasn't holding them back, are absolutely worthless.

    If USC was able to get loaded with talent despite bowl restrictions and fewer scholarships, I think they would be even more loaded if they didn't have bowl restrictions and had 10 extra scholarships to offer.
     
  11. Oct 9, 2013 #1051 of 2940
    sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    D* just raised rates again without adding the channel, so if they're "bleeding", how about cutting back on other channels that no one watches.
    It's been pretty much confirmed by published reports that the NET wants $.80 per sub in its footprint and $.10 outside it.

    I've always thought that D* got its dander up when the PAC 12 signed the deal with Dish. Now they act as if they are paying the conference back by being so obstinate about what type of agreement it wants to agree to carry the channel.
     
  12. Oct 9, 2013 #1052 of 2940
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    322
    24
    Apr 16, 2012
    Did you read my post where I stated that if you're ranking conferences, the SEC is the ONLY tier one conference in existence. The rest (Big Ten, Pac 12, Big 12, ACC), etc. do not compare. Your post helps me make my point.


    Sandra
     
  13. Oct 9, 2013 #1053 of 2940
    Mike Bertelson

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

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Take the personal comments to PM or don't post them at all.

    Discuss the topic and not each other.

    :backtotop

    Mike
     
  14. Oct 9, 2013 #1054 of 2940
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I am saying that the 10 extra scholarships (and it isn't really 10, it is more complicated than that) would NOT BE PLAYING. You can't win more games by adding players that would be sitting on the bench. That is my point. Instead of three and four deep at every position, they are two or three deep with 4 and 5 star recruits (those are the cream of the crop). That is my point. They have more talent than any other PAC 12 team and yet they haven't won since Pete Carroll left despite still having great recruiting classes.

    If you are in agreement that they are loaded in talent, why do you keep saying the scholarship ban is hurting them that badly. Talent is where it would hurt. But they are loaded, so it hasn't hurt that much.
     
  15. Oct 9, 2013 #1055 of 2940
    BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    514
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    Have you ever played football?

    The fans see the game every week and that is pretty much it. But 90% of what the team does actually happens during the week at practice.

    Even if those 10 guys never saw any actual game time, which itself is pretty far fetched at best, they would absolutely help the team improve during practice.

    Those guys at the end of the bench that never play in a game are called the "scout team" in practice. They basically pretend they are the next team on the schedule.

    So before USC plays Stanford, for example, they will be practicing all week against a scout team that is pretending to be Stanford. And the better those players are, the better prepared USC will be on game day.

    And that will lead to a better performance on Saturday when everyone is watching.

    Forgive me if you already knew all of this. It just doesn't seem like it based on your assumption that more depth is almost worthless on the field.

    All of that aside, recruiting is pretty much a crap shoot. There have been plenty of 4 and 5 star guys who never amount to anything, and unrecruited walk ons who turn out to be stars. There is no reason not to think that out of an extra 10 recruited scholarship players, at least 1 or 2 of them would probably be better than a guy currently getting time on the field.
     
  16. Oct 9, 2013 #1056 of 2940
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,345
    578
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    At the depth with which USC recruits, this is a difference, but, really, a very small one. With Kniffin gone, things can only look up for Trojan FB.
     
  17. Oct 9, 2013 #1057 of 2940
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    322
    24
    Apr 16, 2012
    USC will return to a national power relatively quickly. It's the dominant program in an area that is an absolute recruiting hotbed, and it will also always be a destination school for a sizeable amount of national recruits.


    Sandra
     
  18. Oct 9, 2013 #1058 of 2940
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,216
    716
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    They raise rates because other channels are demanding more, not because they've added a bunch of channels. I think it is just fantasy on your part to conclude that Directv isn't carrying Pac 12 because they made a deal with Dish first. That would be like GM refusing to advertise during Super Bowls played in Detroit because it is played on Ford Field. Big companies don't make their business decisions with the mind of a three year old.

    Part of the reason they're doing this is because they see where things are going with stuff like the Pac 12 network, Longhorn network, networks for Houston, Philly, etc. Pretty soon every major city would have its own channel, or even individual teams would have channels. Big time college programs would offer their own channels like Texas is trying to do. Every major conference would have a channel, and soon the minor ones would try to get in on the act.

    At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say that just because you're traditionally known for your sports offerings you aren't going to automatically add everything, certainly not as part of a basic package that everyone must be pay for, rather than as a special add on channel that only those truly interested can buy. The Pac 12 doesn't want to be an add on channel, they want to be a part of a basic package like BTN is and make everyone pay for it whether they're a fan of the conference or not, or whether they even like sports or not.

    If Directv does this for Pac 12, they certainly won't have a leg to stand on when it comes time to renegotiate BTN and tries to offer them something less. But if they hold the line on Pac 12 and any other channels that try to hold out for the same thing, when the SEC network goes live and when it comes time to renegotiate with BTN they can say "this is our policy now, if you don't like it see how long we held out against the Pac 12, we'll do the same to you." I fully expect that if SEC network tries to hold out for a BTN like deal Directv won't carry them, and when the BTN contract comes up in a couple years they won't maintain their placement in a basic tier. Rather than making everyone pay 80 cents, they'll make the people who really want it pay a few dollars and the rest pay nothing so future price increases will be smaller than they otherwise would be if all the conference networks were included in a basic tier.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Oct 9, 2013 #1059 of 2940
    BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    514
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    UCLA Bruin in Maine again tossing in his dos centavos...

    A ranked USC would definitely enhance the conference AND the TV ratings, but as pointed out, those ratings would have nada to do with the PAC12 network ratings because USC vs. UW, UO, Stanford, and UCLA are already off the PAC12 network and on the nationals.
    I've said before that I didn't miss anything last year, that I would have watched, by not having the PAC12 network, and this includes not only the revenue-producing sports, FB & BB, but all of the others that make up the PAC12 network, because by the time women's H2O polo, men's beisbol, etc., made it to the post-season/regionals/finals, they were all on the national networks... not the PAC12 network.

    I've already made up my mind that I'm not dropping DirecTV because they won't carry the PAC12, and it's clear that I'm not alone.
    Those of you who feel differently, you really need to drop DirecTV if you want them to take notice... not that I think it will make a difference.

    But I'm not being fair to the PAC12...
    I got to thinking, is the coverage of the other conferences, on their network, any different?
    For the most part, NO.
    I didn't/don't tune into the PAC12 network, because it's not an option, but I probably wouldn't have more than once or twice last year anyway.
    Even though I have all the sports networks, I can't recall opting to watch a game on any of the 610-X BTN's or any other conference/regional over the offerings on the major networks, the ESPN's, NBC or FOX sports.... because the "more" marquee matchups are already there... and I certainly don't care if I get the longhorn network, even if U of TX were not doing their USC impression.
    Just like I don't care about CAL vs COL, I don't care about Purdue vs ILL... or Vanderbilt vs MISS ST.
    I watch a lot of the PAC12, Big10, and SEC... just not THOSE games.

    If it's only $0.80 per subscriber for the PAC12, then I'm OK with that, I might watch one event and that's alright.... but if I don't get the network, that's fine too.
    I won't concur that the PAC12 is a second-tier conference... but I do consider the PAC12 network a second-tier (at best) network.

    So you have zero interest in the Stanford/Utah game this weekend?

    If you're a Bruins fan, I assume you watched that UCLA/Utah game last week. With UCLA being the favorite to win the PAC 12 South, and possibly go to the Rose Bowl, this game should probably interest you if you're a fan.
     
  20. Oct 9, 2013 #1060 of 2940
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    I know all about the unsure matter of star ratings. But those 10 guys would NOT see the game field unless the game is a blowout. USC is getting the players they want. Period. There are some affects some practice but you don't go from a MNC type team to the complete washout USC is based upon the last 10 scholarships on your roster. You can do that if your coach stinks. Other teams have survived much the same fate as USC. Heck, Auburn under Terry Bowden actually got BETTER under sanctions.

    I used stars only to show that they have not really dropped off. Prior to the sanctions, USC had too many players to play. Period. And they are still loaded and will still put a bunch of players in the NFL. But they can't beat their PAC 12 brethren that don't put as many players in the NFL and lose by 50+ points because of bench players not being there? No way.
     

Share This Page