Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV


  • Please log in to reply
1769 replies to this topic

#221 OFFLINE   Eksynyt

Eksynyt

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 833 posts
Joined: Feb 08, 2008

Posted 27 July 2013 - 08:08 PM

Okay, again I am getting really resentful that people here are suggesting that the Pac 12 as a conference should stop trying to go for the home run in terms of bringing in money and wide distribution.  Basically what you're saying is that there's no hope that people out here will eve be interested in the football programs so why bother...you need to understand that the main reason the Pac 12 doesn't have as big of support as the B1G or SEC is because of our idiot previous commissioner, Tom Hansen, who ran the conference into the ground and let it lag far behind the others.  That's why the programs suffered so much in terms of fan apathy, because they could rarely see their games and there was never any hype for our programs outside of USC.


  • kick4fun likes this

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#222 OFFLINE   Eksynyt

Eksynyt

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 833 posts
Joined: Feb 08, 2008

Posted 27 July 2013 - 08:13 PM

Does anybody else get the feeling that the cable companies helped the Pac 12 negotiate this deal with them in order to keep it away from DirecTV?  Dish got that really weird sweet exclusivity deal (which should have been offered to DirecTV).  I'm thinking there was collusion here and these cable companies and Dish network have done this on purpose, knowing that DirecTV would get the shaft and balk at the high price.  This forces people that want the network, to switch.



#223 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 63 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 27 July 2013 - 08:17 PM

I believe he is saying not as passionate.  I live on the west coast, been attending UCLA games for 20+ years.  Family friends with Terry Donahue and Jim Mora.  Huge Pac 12 fan (go back to the days of it being the Pac 8).  That being said, there is a big difference in the tv ratings, the fannies in the seats compared to the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC.  Just is.  Doesn't mean there aren't very passionate fans here on the west coast, but there are more passionate fan bases elsewhere that deliver the ratings, etc.  

 

Case in point, of the top 20 NCAA attendance rankings for football in 2012.  Six of the top 20 are Big Ten schools, including #1 and #2 and #5.  The Pac 12 has one school in the top 20...USC at #9.  SEC has 8 in the top 20.  Big 12 has two.  ACC has two.  Notre Dame is the lone independent.

 

The below site is an interesting ranking of college football's most "engaged" fan bases.  It includes things like game attendance, ticket prices, twitter and facebook likes and hits.  The PAC-12 has 2 teams in the top 25.  USC at #14 and Oregon at #15.  The Big Ten has 7 teams, including #1, 4, and 6.  The SEC has 10 teams.

 

http://www.ticketcit...gaged-fans.html

 

I love me some PAC-12 football, and strongly believe the PAC-12 puts out the second best product on the field behind the SEC.  The PAC-12 network itself I think provides better content than the BTN.  Remember, the PAC-12 has a couple of #1 and #2 picks each year for football games, and doesn't only get what is left over after Fox and ESPN are done, while the BTN only gets tier 3 games.  Neuheisel as a commentator is as good as anybody on ESPN, and the football in 60 was a great way to watch a game last year.  For a PAC-12 fan, the football rewind gives more PAC-12 focused highlight and discussion than anything on ESPN.  It is a good channel with quality content... but the reality is that the Big Ten and SEC can both put out a worse product and get better carriage deals and more money because of their fan bases.

 

I'm one of the people that thinks Larry Scott has done a good job, because in spite of the above, the PAC-12 has the best tier 1 and tier 2 TV deal in college football.  The PAC-12 network, even if not raking in the dough like some had hoped, is on solid footing, marginally in the black in year one.  A price that would have provided value for DirecTV would have been under-priced for other providers, so they've chosen to stick to the pricing model of their existing contracts.  But for many, not getting on DirecTV will overshadow everything else, and is his defining legacy to date.


  • Satelliteracer likes this

#224 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,028 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 27 July 2013 - 08:22 PM

The below site is an interesting ranking of college football's most "engaged" fan bases. It includes things like game attendance, ticket prices, twitter and facebook likes and hits. The PAC-12 has 2 teams in the top 25. USC at #14 and Oregon at #15. The Big Ten has 7 teams, including #1, 4, and 6. The SEC has 10 teams.

http://www.ticketcit...gaged-fans.html

I love me some PAC-12 football, and strongly believe the PAC-12 puts out the second best product on the field behind the SEC. The PAC-12 network itself I think provides better content than the BTN. Remember, the PAC-12 has a couple of #1 and #2 picks each year for football games, and doesn't only get what is left over after Fox and ESPN are done, while the BTN only gets tier 3 games. Neuheisel as a commentator is as good as anybody on ESPN, and the football in 60 was a great way to watch a game last year. For a PAC-12 fan, the football rewind gives more PAC-12 focused highlight and discussion than anything on ESPN. It is a good channel with quality content... but the reality is that the Big Ten and SEC can both put out a worse product and get better carriage deals and more money because of their fan bases.

I'm one of the people that thinks Larry Scott has done a good job, because in spite of the above, the PAC-12 has the best tier 1 and tier 2 TV deal in college football. The PAC-12 network, even if not raking in the dough like some had hoped, is on solid footing, marginally in the black in year one. A price that would have provided value for DirecTV would have been under-priced for other providers, so they've chosen to stick to the pricing model of their existing contracts. But for many, not getting on DirecTV will overshadow everything else, and is his defining legacy to date.


Actually you just proved they asked for more than they need by probably quite a bit. If they lowered their prices and had much larger distribution by getting everyone to have picked it up, then they would have more than made up the difference in how much less money per sub they would have taken in since they would have had so any more subs.

I am a fan. But pac12 is greedy. I don't blame them for wanting as much as they can, but I think they forgot about being rude to my pocket book on the way.

#225 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,028 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 27 July 2013 - 08:24 PM

Okay, again I am getting really resentful that people here are suggesting that the Pac 12 as a conference should stop trying to go for the home run in terms of bringing in money and wide distribution. Basically what you're saying is that there's no hope that people out here will eve be interested in the football programs so why bother...you need to understand that the main reason the Pac 12 doesn't have as big of support as the B1G or SEC is because of our idiot previous commissioner, Tom Hansen, who ran the conference into the ground and let it lag far behind the others. That's why the programs suffered so much in terms of fan apathy, because they could rarely see their games and there was never any hype for our programs outside of USC.


What the heck football games didn't you get to see?

I used to be able to see them all for my market on DIRECTV. Not anymore.

Basketball I got them all to but I know some of those in other markets didn't get them.

Getting more games on national espn and such was genius, but it didn't require them creating seven new networks and a price tag to go with it.

#226 OFFLINE   kick4fun

kick4fun

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 467 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2006

Posted 27 July 2013 - 10:29 PM

The Cal AD was exceptionally un-professional for what used to be a world class university. Maybe it still is, but people like her give the old Uni a black eye. 

 

How much money has he (Larry Scott) brought in? 

 

The Cal AD was great, considering she was being supportive of Cal Sports by dumping a tv provider that won't carry the sports that she wants to watch, namely CAL. I don't see that as being unprofessional. 

 

The money that Pac12 earned through tv contracts was through the roof.. This was just for the ESPN, FOX tv deal. 

"The contract, which will begin with the 2012-13 season, will be worth more than $225 million per year"  http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6471380

 

This is significantly more than his predecessor. 



#227 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 11,958 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 27 July 2013 - 10:44 PM

The Cal AD was great, considering she was being supportive of Cal Sports by dumping a tv provider that won't carry the sports that she wants to watch, namely CAL. I don't see that as being unprofessional. 

 

The money that Pac12 earned through tv contracts was through the roof.. This was just for the ESPN, FOX tv deal. 

"The contract, which will begin with the 2012-13 season, will be worth more than $225 million per year"  http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6471380

 

This is significantly more than his predecessor. 

Welcome back; thought I'd see you here.....

 

Maybe Scott did a good job negotiating with ESPN and Fox, or maybe given new contracts and a bigger conference, the increase would have been there anyway. In any event, the money is coming from the big networks, not the selling of the Pac12 as a network. 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#228 OFFLINE   DC_SnDvl

DC_SnDvl

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 276 posts
Joined: Aug 17, 2006

Posted 28 July 2013 - 05:16 AM

(Perhaps DirecTV's Big 10 placement is the issue ... where DISH can give PAC-12 the same carriage as Big 10 - in market "choice"/nationwide sports pack - if PAC-12 wants Big 10's carriage on DirecTV that would be nationwide carriage.)
 

 

I think this is what is keeping PAC-12 off of DTV and I don't think anything is going to happen until the Big 10 contract is up.



#229 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,077 posts
  • LocationWanye County PA
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 28 July 2013 - 07:03 AM

OH darn , what will I ever do without another high priced network channel that I'll never watch but still have to pay for.

DIRECTV Since 5/13/2012:

    Living room      Master Bedroom        Bedroom 2            Bedroom 3       Office/Bedroom 4      

HR34-700  /  C31-700  /  HR24-500 / HR23-700  /  H25-100 

Slimline 5 / SWiM 16 / Premier / MLB EI  / MRV

Blue Ridge Cable Networked 30-3 Mbps 

 

 

 


#230 OFFLINE   Mike Bertelson

Mike Bertelson

    6EQUJ5 WOW!

  • Moderators
  • 13,859 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2007

Posted 28 July 2013 - 08:12 AM

OH darn , what will I ever do without another high priced network channel that I'll never watch but still have to pay for.

Your sarcasm aside, it is a valid point. Why should a carriage agreement, with limited interest outside of regional States, require all subs to pay for that channel.

Personally, I’m not a college sports fan and I don’t think it’s fair for me to pay for that channel so diehard fans can have their channel. DIRECTV should not just “suck it up” and pay for it until the agreement doesn’t force those that don’t want it don’t have to pay for it.

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike


  • damondlt likes this

µß
Since it costs 2.4¢ to produce a penny, my 2¢ worth is really 4.8¢ worth.  That 4.8¢ is my own and not the 4.8¢ of DIRECTV, Dish, or anyone else for that matter.


#231 OFFLINE   boukengreen

boukengreen

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 307 posts
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Posted 28 July 2013 - 08:27 AM

Your sarcasm aside, it is a valid point. Why should a carriage agreement, with limited interest outside of regional States, require all subs to pay for that channel.

Personally, I’m not a college sports fan and I don’t think it’s fair for me to pay for that channel so diehard fans can have their channel. DIRECTV should not just “suck it up” and pay for it until the agreement doesn’t force those that don’t want it don’t have to pay for it.

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike

agreed i hope the sec network is like that


  • damondlt likes this
There are some things arrows can't kill, for everything else there's Master Sword.

#232 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,077 posts
  • LocationWanye County PA
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 28 July 2013 - 08:31 AM

Your sarcasm aside, it is a valid point. Why should a carriage agreement, with limited interest outside of regional States, require all subs to pay for that channel.

Personally, I’m not a college sports fan and I don’t think it’s fair for me to pay for that channel so diehard fans can have their channel. DIRECTV should not just “suck it up” and pay for it until the agreement doesn’t force those that don’t want it don’t have to pay for it.

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike

Sorry about the sarcasm, But until Directv wants to give us an option on all Base packages to drop this BS RSN fee, I don't want ANY forced RSNs on me. 

I'm in Big Ten country, and if Directv dropped that channel, I wouldn't care one bit.  All the games are broadcast locally anyway, and ESPN as well as your local news is more then informative about the days games. 


DIRECTV Since 5/13/2012:

    Living room      Master Bedroom        Bedroom 2            Bedroom 3       Office/Bedroom 4      

HR34-700  /  C31-700  /  HR24-500 / HR23-700  /  H25-100 

Slimline 5 / SWiM 16 / Premier / MLB EI  / MRV

Blue Ridge Cable Networked 30-3 Mbps 

 

 

 


#233 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 671 posts
  • LocationStanislaus County Farmland
Joined: Jan 19, 2007

Posted 28 July 2013 - 09:54 AM

Sorry about the sarcasm, But until Directv wants to give us an option on all Base packages to drop this BS RSN fee, I don't want ANY forced RSNs on me. 

I'm in Big Ten country, and if Directv dropped that channel, I wouldn't care one bit.  All the games are broadcast locally anyway, and ESPN as well as your local news is more then informative about the days games. 

Nobody is "forcing" RSNs on you.  You can just subscribe to those in your viewing area. The reason we want the channel is to watch the games live.  No sports fan says, "I'll just skip the game so I can watch 30 seconds of it tonight on the news."

 

Satracer's earlier comments have crystalized D*'s position for me.  They are upset that Dish did an end-run and got a deal that fit their pricing model which included on-site advertising to help keep the cost per sub in line.  Since then DirecTV has taken the schoolyard view and by saying "if we don't get (the ridiculous non-starter) the deal we want (such as we have with Fox Soccer+), then we're taking all our marbles, going home, and won't play."  How childish.  Why would the PAC-12 Net agree to a pay-per-view model for one carrier, but not for any others.  That makes no marketing and business sense from it's point-of-view.  That's an empty promise without any financial or viewer commitment on D's part and that would not sway any additional advertiser to place its product on the PAC-12 Net.

 

Full disclouse:  Even though I'd a D* sub since 1996, I do have access to the channel on-line via a sub through a vacation property elsewhere.  But I want the channel offered to me from D*.  I have no other alternative at my primary home as satellite TV is the only alternative, and I am in month 5 of a new two-year commitment.



#234 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,077 posts
  • LocationWanye County PA
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 28 July 2013 - 10:01 AM

Nobody is "forcing" RSNs on you.  You can just subscribe to those in your viewing area. The reason we want the channel is to watch the games live.  No sports fan says, "I'll just skip the game so I can watch 30 seconds of it tonight on the news."

 

Really?  I'm forced to Entertainment pack to avoid the now $3 RSN fee that comes with Choice , Choice Extra, Choice Ultimate, Premier.

 

That's Force!

 

So is that right? 

 

You want special RSN's you pay for it, let the rest of us have more then 2 options to opt out.

 

Option one Entertainment pack

Option 2 tell Directv to pound sand!

 

NOT ACCEPTABLE!


DIRECTV Since 5/13/2012:

    Living room      Master Bedroom        Bedroom 2            Bedroom 3       Office/Bedroom 4      

HR34-700  /  C31-700  /  HR24-500 / HR23-700  /  H25-100 

Slimline 5 / SWiM 16 / Premier / MLB EI  / MRV

Blue Ridge Cable Networked 30-3 Mbps 

 

 

 


#235 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 671 posts
  • LocationStanislaus County Farmland
Joined: Jan 19, 2007

Posted 28 July 2013 - 10:57 AM

Really?  I'm forced to Entertainment pack to avoid the now $3 RSN fee that comes with Choice , Choice Extra, Choice Ultimate, Premier.

 

That's Force!

 

So is that right? 

 

You want special RSN's you pay for it, let the rest of us have more then 2 options to opt out.

 

Option one Entertainment pack

Option 2 tell Directv to pound sand!

 

NOT ACCEPTABLE!

Why are you getting so upset over a 10 cent per day charge?

That's not the issue with the PAC12 Net and this topic. 


Edited by sdk009, 28 July 2013 - 10:57 AM.


#236 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 28 July 2013 - 11:11 AM

The below site is an interesting ranking of college football's most "engaged" fan bases.  It includes things like game attendance, ticket prices, twitter and facebook likes and hits.  The PAC-12 has 2 teams in the top 25.  USC at #14 and Oregon at #15.  The Big Ten has 7 teams, including #1, 4, and 6.  The SEC has 10 teams.

 

http://www.ticketcit...gaged-fans.html

 

I love me some PAC-12 football, and strongly believe the PAC-12 puts out the second best product on the field behind the SEC.  The PAC-12 network itself I think provides better content than the BTN.  Remember, the PAC-12 has a couple of #1 and #2 picks each year for football games, and doesn't only get what is left over after Fox and ESPN are done, while the BTN only gets tier 3 games.  Neuheisel as a commentator is as good as anybody on ESPN, and the football in 60 was a great way to watch a game last year.  For a PAC-12 fan, the football rewind gives more PAC-12 focused highlight and discussion than anything on ESPN.  It is a good channel with quality content... but the reality is that the Big Ten and SEC can both put out a worse product and get better carriage deals and more money because of their fan bases.

 

I'm one of the people that thinks Larry Scott has done a good job, because in spite of the above, the PAC-12 has the best tier 1 and tier 2 TV deal in college football.  The PAC-12 network, even if not raking in the dough like some had hoped, is on solid footing, marginally in the black in year one.  A price that would have provided value for DirecTV would have been under-priced for other providers, so they've chosen to stick to the pricing model of their existing contracts.  But for many, not getting on DirecTV will overshadow everything else, and is his defining legacy to date.

 

Good stuff.  I also think Larry Scott has done a nice job.  As stated, I'm a huge Pac 12 fan and have been for decades.  I think one of the things that you have to factor in is the games missed.  For any given school, I think the most games that can be missed is 3, it might be 4 (someone feel free to correct me if this is wrong...I'm sure you will :) ) and the question is whether it is worth switching for 3 or 4 games, when they can go to a bar, or whatever and watch it.  Again, this is just my opinion, but I suspect many are saying it's not worth it.  Certainly the numbers reflect that.  As a UCLA fan I believe I missed 2 or 3 games last year.  Wasn't fun, but I survived. In fact for one of them I went to the Rose Bowl and attended the game instead. 

 

Just my two cents. 


DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#237 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 28 July 2013 - 11:22 AM

Nobody is "forcing" RSNs on you.  You can just subscribe to those in your viewing area. The reason we want the channel is to watch the games live.  No sports fan says, "I'll just skip the game so I can watch 30 seconds of it tonight on the news."

 

Satracer's earlier comments have crystalized D*'s position for me.  They are upset that Dish did an end-run and got a deal that fit their pricing model which included on-site advertising to help keep the cost per sub in line.  Since then DirecTV has taken the schoolyard view and by saying "if we don't get (the ridiculous non-starter) the deal we want (such as we have with Fox Soccer+), then we're taking all our marbles, going home, and won't play."  How childish.  Why would the PAC-12 Net agree to a pay-per-view model for one carrier, but not for any others.  That makes no marketing and business sense from it's point-of-view.  That's an empty promise without any financial or viewer commitment on D's part and that would not sway any additional advertiser to place its product on the PAC-12 Net.

 

Full disclouse:  Even though I'd a D* sub since 1996, I do have access to the channel on-line via a sub through a vacation property elsewhere.  But I want the channel offered to me from D*.  I have no other alternative at my primary home as satellite TV is the only alternative, and I am in month 5 of a new two-year commitment.

 

Well, if I crystalized D*'s position for you, I did a bad job.  #1, that's my position, not D*'s.  #2, I disagree with almost everything in that paragraph...apparently I did a poor job of explaining my position if that led to that conclusion.  I can't imagine D* being upset at all with whatever Dish does.  They will do what they will do, that's their business.  You could turn that same argument on its ear and say, "well DISH and AT&T and TWC have a deal so D* must now go do a deal to be on parity."  The reality is, each company will do what makes sense for their customers, for their financial health, etc.  What makes these decisions difficult is the diversity of the customers (sports fans vs non sports fans).  D* has many customers that aren't sports fans that don't want their rates going up.  There are some that have "crystalized" this position in this very thread.  D*, in my opinion (I'm not a spokesman for the company, purely my opinion), has to weigh the impact on all their customers.  They've offered a solution that will appease you and appease those that don't want the rate increase.  Pac 12 said no.  I get why the Pac 12 said no, I also get why D* is pushing back. 

 

The world has changed significantly.  Years ago when Big Ten launched, there was no cord shaving or cord cutting, bills were much less for customers, the economy wasn't hurting, etc, etc.  If you're a non-sports fan and your bill just went up because of the Pac 12, Lakers, Dodgers, etc...are you more likely or less likely to look at alternatives?  The world has changed.  Strategies change, in my opinion. Costs of programming certainly have changed. 


DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#238 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 28 July 2013 - 11:23 AM

Really?  I'm forced to Entertainment pack to avoid the now $3 RSN fee that comes with Choice , Choice Extra, Choice Ultimate, Premier.

 

That's Force!

 

So is that right? 

 

You want special RSN's you pay for it, let the rest of us have more then 2 options to opt out.

 

Option one Entertainment pack

Option 2 tell Directv to pound sand!

 

NOT ACCEPTABLE!

 

Option 3, RSNs don't require penetration to almost all subscribers in a market at rates higher than that $2....sometimes well over 5 times that amount in a market like NYC with YES, MSG, MSG+, SNY.


DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#239 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 63 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 28 July 2013 - 11:26 AM

Actually you just proved they asked for more than they need by probably quite a bit. If they lowered their prices and had much larger distribution by getting everyone to have picked it up, then they would have more than made up the difference in how much less money per sub they would have taken in since they would have had so any more subs.

I am a fan. But pac12 is greedy. I don't blame them for wanting as much as they can, but I think they forgot about being rude to my pocket book on the way.

 

I don't think you can necessarily say that, because we don't know what price would have provided value for DirecTV.  The most common estimate (like SNL Kagan,) is the PAC-12 is asking 80 cents per subscriber inside footprint, and 10 cents per sub outside footprint.  If a .60/.08 pricing structure worked for DirecTV, then you may have a point.  But if DirecTV assesses that they really won't lose that many PAC-12 fans, and that the math doesn't make sense until a .20/.03, pricing structure, then no, then I don't think the PAC-12 is making a mistake by not allowing DirecTV to set the price.

 

I also think, for D*, they are using the P12N as a bit of a battleground network to push back on the exploding sports costs, and it may not be a purely economic decision.  Or at least not based just on the economics of P12, but on the larger economic impact of Sports programming in general.  Especially with SEC network coming, to shift the college networks from the BTN construct (everyone gets it) to an ala-carte or sports channel construct would be a huge victory for D*, not just with their negotiation with P12 but for future negotiations.  Right now, all one has to do is call D* to threaten leaving due to P12N to get a free year of Sunday Ticket (I know quite a few people who have done this and some that don't care at all about P12, but have used this for the free Sunday Ticket).  So D* is willing to lose revenue elsewhere in their battle with PAC-12.

 

All that to say, I don't think it is as simple as figuring out the right pricing model that would have worked for D*, and allowing that to set the price for their network for everyone else.  The market has gotten a lot more complicated than that.



#240 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 63 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 28 July 2013 - 12:27 PM

Good stuff.  I also think Larry Scott has done a nice job.  As stated, I'm a huge Pac 12 fan and have been for decades.  I think one of the things that you have to factor in is the games missed.  For any given school, I think the most games that can be missed is 3, it might be 4 (someone feel free to correct me if this is wrong...I'm sure you will :) ) and the question is whether it is worth switching for 3 or 4 games, when they can go to a bar, or whatever and watch it.  Again, this is just my opinion, but I suspect many are saying it's not worth it.  Certainly the numbers reflect that.  As a UCLA fan I believe I missed 2 or 3 games last year.  Wasn't fun, but I survived. In fact for one of them I went to the Rose Bowl and attended the game instead. 

 

Just my two cents. 

 

Last year the number of games each school had on the P12N varied between 3 to 7.  USC and Oregon were the low at 3, but as I mentioned earlier, even there they both had a "good" game.  Oregon played Oregon State on the P12N, and USC vs ASU was a big game for the South Division Race.  UCLA had 4 games on the P12N (Houston, Colorado, Cal, and Arizona).  The average each year will be ~4.5 games on P12N per school.  But since roughly half of those games would be home games, you'd only miss about 2 road games per year on agregate, if you attended the home games...  Hey, maybe P12N will help home attendance numbers in the PAC-12.

 

One of the things that may hurt demand for the P12N is that you don't know which games will be on the network until often 6/12 days prior to the game.  How many more Cal fans would have been inclined to switch last year if they had known at the beginning of the season that 7 of their 12 games would be on the P12N?  Which schools this year will have at least half their games on the network.  Generating demand for the network may be a bit slower, and a learned process over a couple years, as different fan bases experience a season with a high number of games on the P12N.

 

One other comment, your "acceptance" of missing a couple games is more typical of us PAC-12 fans.  I married into a Nebraska family, and have spent a lot of time in the Cornhusker State.  I don't know of a single Nebraska fan that would ever accept missing a single game.  At my wedding we had to have TV's at the reception because of an overlap with the Husker game.


Edited by chillyfl, 28 July 2013 - 02:43 PM.





spam firewall