1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

The official Pac-12 discussion thread

Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by Stuart Sweet, Sep 17, 2012.

  1. WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Yea, but this is not true. The deal is putting the network in place for those in Pac 12 territory, NOT the nation. The remaining part of the nation would get the channel in the sports pack, a deal in which they would pay extra for.

    LA already has multiple sports channels om Directv, two Fox Sports Nets and most of the rest of us have no more than one Fox sports Net....we pay the same rates as LA and yet LA gets more sports networks, so who is subsidizing who here?

    And I don't watch Speed, Fuel or some of these other (really) niche channels, yet I am subsidizing the viewing of these channels?

    Here in Oregon we can't even get our NBA Trail Blazers on Directv because Directv favors it's own Root Sports NW subsidiary (which has NOTHING on it outside of the Mariners and in the winter the cupboard is almost completely bare - we do have Seattle area high school football). CSN NW (blazers) costs less per sub than Root NW does according to published numbers.....

    Now also Pac 12 is charging .80 per sub according some reports. Root NW is charging $2.40 accoriding to reports. Root used to carry Pac 12, so in theory instead of $2.40 cost for Root should drop for the loss of Pac 12 content, meaing that those dollars can shift over and cover the .80 charge for Pac 12.

    So who is subsidizing who here? Your understanding of the situation is flawed and wrong. Sorry to burst that bubble.

    And, beyond that most of the rates between providers are similar....so the new mantra with "Directv is pay the same and get less!" In fact, my new Dish Network bill (even w/o considering the new sign up rebates, etc.) is less than Directv. Comcast bills are roughly the same as Directv. So how does a competitor do it and charge the same or less than Directv?

    So if you are still with Directv I'd call them up and get whatever deal you want...they'll pay. When terminated Directv they offered me the kitchen sink, $10 credit for 2 years, free HBO, showtime, etc. for 6 months, free sports pack for 6 months, free NFL Sunday Ticket, brand new equipment, etc. I probably could have even held out for more. But I said no and they kept pushing more.....so do it, call and get a credit for yourself. I agree sports channel costs are going up......but Directv, owning three of them directly, is just as much of the problem as anyone else....they lost content and they refuse to adjust their price for it, so now they make even more money....charge the same for Root but have little or no cost on content anymore!
     
  2. DawgLink

    DawgLink Woof Woof Woof

    1,543
    3
    Nov 5, 2006
    Washington, DC
    And many like myself have the Sports Pack and do not want a price increase off that based on a West-Coast channel that AGAIN few watch but 2-3 times a year.

    So what? Why add more of those then?

    I have seen different numbers from different reports.

    And that price is absurd. As others have said, your market compares to the NY market in terms of ridiculously inflated prices.

    There is nothing flawed whatsoever in what I am saying as few if anyone wants this channel outside of the Pac-12 fans mostly on the West-Coast. Whether they add it to the Sports Pack, Essential, or whatever....the price the Channel wants is ABSURD with the utterly pathetic content for virtually the entire year.
     
  3. DC_SnDvl

    DC_SnDvl Godfather

    276
    0
    Aug 17, 2006
    They do this with the B1G Network now? Why would anyone expect any of the other conference networks to agree to anything less?

     
  4. WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Yea, so what? Times change all the time. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean we remain in the past. And frankly, Pac 12 has alums and fans all over the country that do want the channel. I know folks in the deep south always resist change, well unfortunately the world just does not work that way. Change is inevitable.


    So let's remain in the past? So why add NHL Network, NFL Network, etc. over the years?

    Maybe it's time to pull some sports channels off that are not getting good viewership and have poor content. (i.e. Root Sports NW and the others).

    Life changes every day. I already cannot watch the Portland Trail Blazers on Directv because they favor their own 100% controlled Root Sports over CSN-NW.

    Yep, but that price goes right to Directv as the owner of Root Sports. Directv is just as much a cause of the problem on sports channels as anyone else. Mike White talks a good game, but then fails to look in the mirror. Root Sports has an increase over the past 7 or 8 years just above the national average on sports channels. Main difference is Mr. White's own sports channels have very little content today, so he's raking in the cash on Root....they are charging premium rates and showing high school football, which costs them next to nothing.

    I flat disagree with that statement. The content of the Pac 12 Network costs less on Pac 12 Network (for more content) than Root Sports (or any other west coast RSN charges).
     
  5. WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Yea, so what? Times change all the time. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean we remain in the past. And frankly, Pac 12 has alums and fans all over the country that do want the channel. I know folks in the deep south always resist change, well unfortunately the world just does not work that way. Change is inevitable.


    So let's remain in the past? So why add NHL Network, NFL Network, etc. over the years?

    Maybe it's time to pull some sports channels off that are not getting good viewership and have poor content. (i.e. Root Sports NW and the others).

    Life changes every day. I already cannot watch the Portland Trail Blazers on Directv because they favor their own 100% controlled Root Sports over CSN-NW.

    Yep, but that price goes right to Directv as the owner of Root Sports. Directv is just as much a cause of the problem on sports channels as anyone else. Mike White talks a good game, but then fails to look in the mirror. Root Sports has an increase over the past 7 or 8 years just above the national average on sports channels. Main difference is Mr. White's own sports channels have very little content today, so he's raking in the cash on Root....they are charging premium rates and showing high school football, which costs them next to nothing.

    I flat disagree with that statement. The content of Pac 12 sports costs less on Pac 12 Network (for more content) than Root Sports (or any other west coast RSN charges). So if we pay 80 cents per sub for Pac 12 for the whole thing or $2.40 something on Root for a few games here and there? We have a LOT more content for lower cost. Basically Pac 12 can do the whole thing for a lot less than others and give us better access at the same time.

    Fact remains that Pac 12 will probably be the last league owned channel. The grain is so difficult now with the fights Pac 12 is having that it is unlikely any other league will be able to muster wide distribution.
     
  6. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,153
    546
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Of course. But in what numbers? Not the number of alums, but those who really want to watch their FB or soccer or BB team?

    And, Mr. Traveller, have you any connection with Pac-12 in addition to being a fan?
     
  7. Mike Bertelson

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

    14,031
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    The comment in bold brings up a very interesting thought exercise.

    Let’s say it is 80¢ per sub. If DIRECTV is paying 80¢ per sub then the sub is paying 80+¢.

    The question I find myself asking is this a reasonable cost for a single RSN and is it also reasonable to expect that other content providers won’t expect that they can get similarly priced carriage agreements in future?

    Personally, I think costs per channel per subscriber are in danger of getting out of hand. e.g. If we have 100 channels averaging 75¢ per sub that’s $75/mo per subscriber to carry those channels.

    I believe that with people using DVRs and functions like AutoHop we can expect it’s going to be difficult for broadcasters to maintain ad revenues. Once high carriage deals become the norm, it will be one way for broadcasters to recoup some of that missing ad money further driving up our monthly bills. IMHO, the PAC-12 carriage deal is the line in the sand only beacuse it came at a time when the line needed to be drawn and unfortunately the PAC-12 fans are caught in the middle.

    My 2¢ FWIW.

    Mike
     
  8. Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    Happy for the Lakers' fans.

    I knew the lines coming out of DirecTV were nothing more than empty rhetoric. Too expensive, don't want non-lakers fans paying or subsidizing for fans. Yeah right.

    Complaining isn't enough as I think DirecTV felt the cancellation pressure as I can't explain them putting foot in mouth after holding out for this long.

    DirecTV being 0 for 2 in two local sports networks for the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (lakers and usc/ucla) wasn't and isn't healthy.
     
  9. Devo1237

    Devo1237 Legend

    413
    15
    Apr 22, 2008
    Man I hope the Lakers distraction helps bring the p12 negotiations back to the table. I'm dying not being able to see some bball!
     
  10. woj027

    woj027 Icon

    911
    8
    Sep 3, 2007
    Portland, OR
    yea, but being 0-2 for local in Portland sports (Blazers and OSU/UofO) is apparently healthy. And further, being 0-2 for sports in Seattle ( Blazers -sorry sonics fans and WSU/UW) is also healthy.

    our 6 (oregon) and 9 (washington) electoral votes don't mean much to California's 32….
     
  11. WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    My wife and I are alums of different Pac 12 universities and our kids someday will likely be Pac 12 students, our parents were Pac 12 students, and of course, we hold season tickets to football and attend other sports events.

    So no employment connection, alum and fan.
     
  12. WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Yea cancellations had to be significant, it was not looking pretty.
     
  13. woj027

    woj027 Icon

    911
    8
    Sep 3, 2007
    Portland, OR
    As much as I don't like the ducks ( can't use the word hate) it would be great if Phil knight and/or nike campus had directv. It would be great for him to threaten to drop. Because the state of Oregon doesn't have ant clout to push a pac-12 deal
     
  14. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,153
    546
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Thanks.

    I was slightly dyslexic when I read the first sentence: "My wife and I are alums of 12 different Pac. universities..."!!!
     
  15. Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    Well, one thing is for certain, DirecTV can never say they don't want non-fans subsidizing programming for fans, less we dig this all back up and laugh.

    I'm sure they paid full price for this package or TWC was willing to discount everyone else they already signed (highly unlikely).

    DirecTV is kind of sleazy in my eyes and they are losing their pristine reputation (at least I held them in that regard prior to this year). If they lose exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket, they may be in trouble in my opinion based on what they are publicly saying and doing.

    Which begs to question: where's the pac-12 network and what's their excuse this time?
     
  16. Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    So NFL, get DirecTV for all you can. If I were you, I would.
     
  17. sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    Heads up: Civil War (Ore @ Oreg. St) game this Sat (11/24) on the PAC-12 Net (exclusively) at Noon (PST).
    Thanks for nothing D*.
     
  18. sigma1914

    sigma1914 DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    14,573
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Isn't that the network's first ever game with both teams ranked? It's about time they had a decent game ... it only took 13 weeks. Too bad the UCLA verse Stanford game is way more important since Stanford controls their own destiny. Stanford at UCLA gets national coverage on Fox... Fox picked the right game.
     
  19. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    They won't lose their exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. The NFL wants it limited to a single provider and DirecTV will have first dibs at signing a new deal. It's DirecTV's crown jewel. It isn't going anywhere.
     
  20. chillyfl

    chillyfl Cool Member

    74
    6
    Sep 11, 2012
    Insomnia, so instead of counting sheep, I counted games involving both teams that are currently ranked in the BCS Top 25, up through the games this coming weekend. So through week 13, there will have been 39 total games of currently ranked teams and the PAC-12 Networks will have had 6 of those games. By network:

    ESPN - 10
    ABC - 7.5 (Oregon State vs UCLA was regional coverage split with ESPN2)
    FOX - 6
    P12N - 6
    CBS - 5
    NBC - 2
    ESPN2 - 1.5 (see above for .5 game explanation)
    ESPNG/SPNY/MASN - 1 (Rutgers vs Kent St.)
     

Share This Page