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
1990 replies to this topic

#1051 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

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

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:08 AM

 

 

 

Again, this is strictly about money and Directv getting sick and tired of paying more and more, their profit margins have shrunk and they want to stop the bleeding.  I still don't think the sec is as cut and dry as everyone thinks it is for their channel.  It will not be the exact same deal PAC12 or it wont get picked up either.

 

We still don't even know for sure what deal the PAC12 offered Directv.  Its all guessing since the two sieds have said thigs that make it seem like they are both telling you the truth but from very different perspectives on how the deal would compare to the big 10 network and Dishes agreement.  Its definitely true that since they don't have all the biggest games for the conference it is far less important in Directvs eyes, I think, and there fore the number cruncher say the price isn't worth it at this time.

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.



...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#1052 OFFLINE   Sandra

Sandra

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 288 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:26 AM

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)

 

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



#1053 OFFLINE   Mike Bertelson

Mike Bertelson

    6EQUJ5 WOW!

  • Moderators
  • 13,986 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2007

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:45 AM

Take the personal comments to PM or don't post them at all.

 

Discuss the topic and not each other.

 

:backtotop

 

Mike


µß
Since it costs 1.66¢ to produce a penny, my 2¢ worth is really 3.32¢ worth.  That 3.32¢ is my own and not the 3.32¢ of DIRECTV, Dish, or anyone else for that matter.


#1054 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,945 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 09 October 2013 - 11:47 AM

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.

 

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.


LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#1055 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 443 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:46 PM

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.

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.

Edited by BlackDynamite, 09 October 2013 - 12:47 PM.


#1056 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,751 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:12 PM

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. 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#1057 OFFLINE   Sandra

Sandra

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 288 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:42 PM

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



#1058 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,938 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:01 PM

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.

 

 

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.


Edited by slice1900, 09 October 2013 - 02:02 PM.

  • fleckrj likes this

SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#1059 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 443 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:16 PM

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.

#1060 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,945 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:17 PM

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.

 

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.


LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#1061 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 443 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:20 PM

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.

So you think they'll have a huge improvement the rest of the season?

#1062 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

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

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:12 PM

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.

First off, everyone will not be paying 80 cents, only those who live in the West.

 

Most channels D* carries are locked into long-term agreements that become very visible when they are up for renewal.  I haven't seen any notices of carriage agreements up for renewal since the Versus fiasco a couple of years ago.

 

I can only go by circumstantial evidence, but D* sure appeared to dig in after the deal was signed with Dish.  They started to run ads, posting blogs, and staged Q&As on its website about how the PAC 12 were mean ogres and they only will agree to carry the channel on a pay-for-view basis. The fact that the CSRs are still, clueless about any agreement shows me that D* really doesn't care anymore about carrying the channel unless the PAC 12 gives them the channel at a rate far less than what ALL the other carriers (except Verizon) are paying.

 

Based on the lay of the land, we will see a much bigger outcry if D* tries to pull this same stunt when it comes to carrying the SEC channel as that conference has far more dedicated football fans who are passionate about their football.  Not to say PAC 12 fans aren't passionate, but in the SEC footprint, college football is king and there are only two sports: football and spring football.



#1063 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,945 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:40 PM

So you think they'll have a huge improvement the rest of the season?


They might. They might not. They didn't bring a coach in from outside. Don't know enough of the staff dynamics.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#1064 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 443 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:04 PM

They might. They might not. They didn't bring a coach in from outside. Don't know enough of the staff dynamics.

Let me be clear, I know Kiffin sucks. I don't want you to think I'm sticking up for him.

I do want to say though, he was dealt a pretty bad hand. Not very many coaches could take over and do a great job with a PAC 12 team that had a ban from bowl games and was stripped of 10 scholarships per year. The fact that he was still able to recruit top level talent under the circumstances is pretty good. A big part of a head coach's job is recruiting.

They won't get any better this year. I'm calling it right now.

They'll probably hire a really good coach after the season, provided they can get one willing to step into the stripped scholarships situation and knowing he'll be fired like Kiffin was if he doesn't have great success with limited depth.

And they might slightly improve next season if the coach is really good. But I'm calling it right now, they won't have great success, like Stanford or Oregon this season level of success, until after those stripped scholarships are returned.

Edited by BlackDynamite, 09 October 2013 - 07:07 PM.


#1065 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,350 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:16 PM

I think they'll hire some mid level coach for a year, then bring Chip Kelly back to college for his dream job. They should've suffered through Kiffin 1 extra year so Kelly could wait out his ridiculous 18-month show-cause penalty. Those Oregon sanctions were a joke. As SI.com said ...

 

How will Oregon ever recover from losing one scholarship in each of the next two years? How will the Ducks possibly build a recruiting class if they're only allowed 37 official prospect visits instead of the 41 they averaged the previous four years?


If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#1066 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 443 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:21 PM

I think they'll hire some mid level coach for a year, then bring Chip Kelly back to college for his dream job. They should've suffered through Kiffin 1 extra year so Kelly could wait out his ridiculous 18-month show-cause penalty. Those Oregon sanctions were a joke. As SI.com said ...

No way. He's not leaving an NFL head coaching job to go back to college. The only way USC gets him is if he sucks in the NFL and gets fired.

I think they'll make a run at Peterson from Boise State and Sarkisian from Washington.

#1067 OFFLINE   Michael H..

Michael H..

    Legend

  • Unregistered / Not Logged In
  • 191 posts
Joined: May 31, 2007

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:59 PM

m 


Edited by Michael Hilley, 12 December 2013 - 07:16 PM.


#1068 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,938 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:51 PM

Based on the lay of the land, we will see a much bigger outcry if D* tries to pull this same stunt when it comes to carrying the SEC channel as that conference has far more dedicated football fans who are passionate about their football.  Not to say PAC 12 fans aren't passionate, but in the SEC footprint, college football is king and there are only two sports: football and spring football.

 

 

We might see a bigger outcry, but the SEC network will have the same limitations as BTN and the Pac 12 network does - it is a third tier network that takes only those games that CBS and ESPN don't want. So you won't miss Alabama/TA&M, you'll miss say Kentucky/Florida. Not that there aren't people that don't want to see that game, but pain of not having the channel will be mainly felt by fans of the lesser teams, as Alabama won't be on the SEC network except when they play some creampuff they're favored to beat by 50.

 

If Directv really does want to extricate BTN from a basic tier, they can't give the SEC network that deal. The SEC may be better in football, but the B1G has more fans because the schools are much larger and thus there are many more B1G alumni than SEC alumni. There was an article in the NYT not long ago discussing the reason why the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, where a marketing firm did surveys and showed the size of the fan base for each team in the power conferences, as well as the overall size of the fan base. The B1G was ahead by quite a bit, because some of the schools are so big. The SEC being better at winning football games than the B1G for the past decade doesn't affect B1G fan support - it isn't like pro sports where many people who live in areas without a local team are bandwagon jumpers who change teams regularly.

 

Of course, the SEC may not try to get the same deal as BTN. Because their fans are so passionate about football, maybe rather than trying to charge 80 cents for every subscriber in the south, they charge $5 for only those who want the channel, and they may well end up making more money that way.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#1069 OFFLINE   Sandra

Sandra

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 288 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 10 October 2013 - 07:16 AM

No way. He's not leaving an NFL head coaching job to go back to college. The only way USC gets him is if he sucks in the NFL and gets fired.

 

And you base this on what?  Intimate knowledge of Chip Kelly?  Or just your opinion?

 

 

Sandra


Edited by Sandra, 10 October 2013 - 07:16 AM.


#1070 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,751 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 10 October 2013 - 08:44 AM

And you base this on what?  Intimate knowledge of Chip Kelly?  Or just your opinion?

 

Most everything here is one's own opinion!


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#1071 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

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

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:00 AM

We might see a bigger outcry, but the SEC network will have the same limitations as BTN and the Pac 12 network does - it is a third tier network that takes only those games that CBS and ESPN don't want. So you won't miss Alabama/TA&M, you'll miss say Kentucky/Florida. Not that there aren't people that don't want to see that game, but pain of not having the channel will be mainly felt by fans of the lesser teams, as Alabama won't be on the SEC network except when they play some creampuff they're favored to beat by 50.

 

If Directv really does want to extricate BTN from a basic tier, they can't give the SEC network that deal. The SEC may be better in football, but the B1G has more fans because the schools are much larger and thus there are many more B1G alumni than SEC alumni. There was an article in the NYT not long ago discussing the reason why the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers, where a marketing firm did surveys and showed the size of the fan base for each team in the power conferences, as well as the overall size of the fan base. The B1G was ahead by quite a bit, because some of the schools are so big. The SEC being better at winning football games than the B1G for the past decade doesn't affect B1G fan support - it isn't like pro sports where many people who live in areas without a local team are bandwagon jumpers who change teams regularly.

 

Of course, the SEC may not try to get the same deal as BTN. Because their fans are so passionate about football, maybe rather than trying to charge 80 cents for every subscriber in the south, they charge $5 for only those who want the channel, and they may well end up making more money that way.

Maybe D* should think about a "college" package separate from the SportsPak.  Put the PAC 12 Net, B1G, SEC, & Longhorn Nets in it and sell it separately. I'd pay $5 for that.



#1072 OFFLINE   Sandra

Sandra

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 288 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:04 AM

Most everything here is one's own opinion!

 

The nature of his post made it sound like he may have some inside intel to share with us.

 

 

Sandra



#1073 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 443 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:04 AM

And you base this on what? Intimate knowledge of Chip Kelly? Or just your opinion?


Sandra

History. Successful NFL coaches never quit their job and go back to coaching college.

You probably can't be a successful college coach unless you're a very competitive person. If you're really competitive, you probably want to compete at the highest level.

Then there's the money, which will always be greater in the NFL.

College coaches often fail in the NFL so it is possible that he sucks and gets fired, which opens up the possibility that he goes back to coaching college. So far, he's been fairly successful, so I would not count on that.

Edited by BlackDynamite, 10 October 2013 - 09:07 AM.


#1074 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,281 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:11 AM

Maybe D* should think about a "college" package separate from the SportsPak.  Put the PAC 12 Net, B1G, SEC, & Longhorn Nets in it and sell it separately. I'd pay $5 for that.

 

A complete college pack would still need to include the RSNs (and college sports is about the only thing usefull about the out-of-market RSNs), so there is not very much to separate a "college" package from the existing sports pack.  A package that includes just the PAC 12, B1G, SEC, and Longhorn, if it was possible to get the carriage agreements for such a package, would be more than $5.



#1075 OFFLINE   Sandra

Sandra

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 288 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:15 AM

History. Successful NFL coaches never quit their job and go back to coaching college. You probably can't be a successful college coach unless you're a very competitive person. If you're really competitive, you probably want to compete at the highest level. Then there's the money, which will always be greater in the NFL.

 

Well first of all we don't really know yet if Chip Kelly will be a successful NFL coach.  Will be years before we know.  Some of his Eagles offensive schemes look innovative, but he's finding out that this isn't Oregon, where having the fastest athletes on the field makes any scheme look good.

 

And history also gives us these names:

 

Nick Saban

Bobby Petrino

Steve Spurrier

Dennis Erickson

Mike Riley

 

...and probably some older ones I forgot or don't know about.  Great college coaches who flamed out in the NFL because they either weren't good enough, or simply missed the college coaching environment and didn't give the NFL enough time to see if they would be successful or not.  Money did not keep them in the NFL.

 

Chip Kelly could easily fall into that category.

 

 

Sandra


Edited by Sandra, 10 October 2013 - 09:18 AM.

  • Laxguy likes this




Protected By... spam firewall...And...