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
1989 replies to this topic

#1151 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 14 October 2013 - 11:42 AM

That was in the 2012 championship game.  My comment was in response to the statement  that Notre Dame did not deserve to be in the in the 2013 championship game. When you have to choose between an undefeated Notre Dame or Stanford, who lost to Notre Dame or Oregon, who lost to Stanford, picking Notre Dame was a no-brainer.  The question really should be whether a one-loss Alabama (they lost to Texas A&M that year) should have been the opponent to Notre Dame, but Alabama answered that on the field.

 

For the 2012 championship game, there were many one loss teams, but no undefeated teams other than LSU.  Again, the question should have been which one-loss team should have played an undefeated LSU in the championship game .  The candidates were Stanford (who had lost to Oregon), Boise State (who had played a weak schedule and had lost to TCU), Oklahoma State (who had lost to Iowa State), or Alabama, who had lost to LSU.  Of the one loss teams, Alabama was the best, and Alabama showed that on the field.

 

Interesting note about Alabama the last two years.  Before 2011, no BCS champion finished the season with fewer than 4 wins against year top 25 teams (according to the final Coaches poll).  (http://www.cfbtrivia...tby=Wins&cres=1)  In 2011, they set an all time low, with only 2 wins, and followed that up in 2012 as the second team to achieve this feat of mediocrity and finish with 3 wins against top 25.

 

The fact they won, doesn't negate the fact they accomplished far less to get there than any teams in the past.



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

#1152 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,789 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 14 October 2013 - 11:58 AM

The difference is that Missouri is undefeated, while Utah has lost twice. That's why losing to Utah is seen as worse than losing to Missouri. If Utah was undefeated and Missouri had two losses you would see Georgia drop a lot more and Stanford drop less.


And who did Utah lose to? Just saying you need to look at more than loses but also to who.

The pac12 plays harder schedules than the sec. If the pac12 teams could make gal their games walkovers as well they'd have an easier time havering less defeats too.

#1153 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,789 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:04 PM

That was in the 2012 championship game. My comment was in response to the statement that Notre Dame did not deserve to be in the in the 2013 championship game. When you have to choose between an undefeated Notre Dame or Stanford, who lost to Notre Dame or Oregon, who lost to Stanford, picking Notre Dame was a no-brainer. The question really should be whether a one-loss Alabama (they lost to Texas A&M that year) should have been the opponent to Notre Dame, but Alabama answered that on the field.

For the 2012 championship game, there were many one loss teams, but no undefeated teams other than LSU. Again, the question should have been which one-loss team should have played an undefeated LSU in the championship game . The candidates were Stanford (who had lost to Oregon), Boise State (who had played a weak schedule and had lost to TCU), Oklahoma State (who had lost to Iowa State), or Alabama, who had lost to LSU. Of the one loss teams, Alabama was the best, and Alabama showed that on the field.


Actually unfortunately you will never know if a different team could have beat Alabama or Lsu that year but ill bet several others could have including a pac12 team.

I can't wait for next year and the playoffs. I just wish it had been three rounds instead of two. 8 schools would have been much better.

#1154 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 361 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:07 PM

That was in the 2012 championship game. My comment was in response to the statement that Notre Dame did not deserve to be in the in the 2013 championship game. When you have to choose between an undefeated Notre Dame or Stanford, who lost to Notre Dame or Oregon, who lost to Stanford, picking Notre Dame was a no-brainer. The question really should be whether a one-loss Alabama (they lost to Texas A&M that year) should have been the opponent to Notre Dame, but Alabama answered that on the field.

For the 2012 championship game, there were many one loss teams, but no undefeated teams other than LSU. Again, the question should have been which one-loss team should have played an undefeated LSU in the championship game . The candidates were Stanford (who had lost to Oregon), Boise State (who had played a weak schedule and had lost to TCU), Oklahoma State (who had lost to Iowa State), or Alabama, who had lost to LSU. Of the one loss teams, Alabama was the best, and Alabama showed that on the field.

So then you think Utah should have been in the championship game in 2009? They were undefeated that year while Oklahoma and Florida, who both had a loss, played in the championship game.

Or, again, does that logic only apply when it helps the SEC?

#1155 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,528 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:09 PM

And who did Utah lose to? Just saying you need to look at more than loses but also to who.

The pac12 plays harder schedules than the sec. If the pac12 teams could make gal their games walkovers as well they'd have an easier time havering less defeats too.

 

 

One of Utah's losses was to a team that lost to a FCS team at home.


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


#1156 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,204 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:14 PM

And who did Utah lose to? Just saying you need to look at more than loses but also to who.

The pac12 plays harder schedules than the sec. If the pac12 teams could make gal their games walkovers as well they'd have an easier time havering less defeats too.

What harder schedules?? All teams play a cupcake every year. It didn't work well for Oregon St. Who's Stanford played that's so hard?


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

#1157 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 361 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:18 PM

And Kentucky played South Carolina close (28-35) at South Carolina, but there is no way that Kentucky is any better than 13th in the SEC.

If Kentucky played a PAC 12 school close then it would be relevant to the discussion.

Washington State, who is no better than the 10th best team in the PAC 12, went to Auburn, who you just said is the 8th best team in the SEC, and almost beat them. The game was close enough that we can assume Washington State would be favored if they were to play at Washington State.

This is a bottom tier PAC 12 team, 10th out of 12. On the road, against a middle tier SEC team, 8th out of 14.

The fact that the SEC is good enough to compete with the SEC doesn't mean anything when we're comparing the PAC 12 to the SEC. Based on the results on the field, the botton of the PAC 12 appears to be on par with the middle of the SEC.

#1158 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 361 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:20 PM

One of Utah's losses was to a team that lost to a FCS team at home.

Utah's two losses were both on the last play of the game to teams that currently have a combined one loss.

#1159 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:47 PM

What harder schedules?? All teams play a cupcake every year. It didn't work well for Oregon St. Who's Stanford played that's so hard?

 

Of course every team plays cupcakes.  That misses the point, the difference has always been the number of cupcakes the SEC plays.  Below shows the number of home games each team has played against non-AQ opponents (removing any top 25, e.g. good non-AQ) since 2006 (the year the NCAA fully adopted the 12 game schedule).  (http://www.cfbtrivia...ortby=GP&cres=1)

 

Auburn 20 LSU 19 Florida 19 Arkansas 19 Alabama 19 Tennessee 19 Kentucky 19 Texas A&M 18 South Carolina 17 Mississippi 17 Mississippi St. 16 Missouri 15 Georgia 14 Vanderbilt 12 Arizona St. 12 Oregon 11 Arizona 11 Washington St. 9 Washington 8 Utah 8 Oregon St. 8 California 7 UCLA 7 Stanford 7 Colorado 7 USC 3
  • pdxBeav likes this

#1160 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:09 PM

ESPN has an article today "Reviewing the First Half of 2013."  Included is their list of the top 5 upsets of the season.  According to ESPN the biggest and 2nd biggest upsets of the season have occurred on, wait for it...  The PAC-12 Networks.  http://espn.go.com/n...idseason-review

 

Biggest upsets
 

1. Utah 27, No. 5 Stanford 21, Oct. 12

The Utes turned away the Cardinal on two plays from their 6-yard line in the final minute to pull off their biggest victory as Pac-12 members. Stanford quarterback Kevin Hogan threw two straight incompletions, ending the Cardinal's 13-game winning streak.

 

2. Eastern Washington 49, No. 25 Oregon State 46, Aug. 31
The Eagles became the third FCS team to defeat a ranked FBS foe by piling up 625 yards of offense in a stunning victory on the road. Eagles quarterbackVernon Adams passed for 411 yards with four touchdowns and ran for 107 with two scores, including the winning 2-yard run with 18 seconds left.


Edited by chillyfl, 14 October 2013 - 02:13 PM.


#1161 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,204 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:16 PM

ESPN has an article today "Reviewing the First Half of 2013."  Included is their list of the top 5 upsets of the season.  According to ESPN the biggest and 2nd biggest upsets of the season have occurred on, wait for it...  The PAC-12 Networks.  http://espn.go.com/n...idseason-review

3 were the Big 12 teams... I guess they're the best and need their own network. The 5 pest games weren't any involving P12... I guess that's fairly telling and supportive of DirecTV's stance of the biggest and best games are already available.


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

#1162 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,235 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:20 PM

So then you think Utah should have been in the championship game in 2009? They were undefeated that year while Oklahoma and Florida, who both had a loss, played in the championship game.

Or, again, does that logic only apply when it helps the SEC?

 

No, it applies to the Big 12 and Big 10, too ;) I would even apply it to the PAC 12 and ACC, but in 2008, Utah was in the Mountain West, and they played a very weak schedule.  Beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl was by far their best win of the season.  Prior to that, they had not played a team that would make anyone think they were one of the top two teams in the country.  

 

Oklahoma's only loss (prior to losing to Florida in the championship game) was to a 11 and 1 Texas team who then went on to beat Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl.  It would be very difficult to say that Oklahoma did not belong in the BCS Championship game.  One could argue that the Ole Miss loss was a bad loss for Florida, and they did not belong in the championship game, but they beat Oklahoma in the BCS championship game.

 

I, too, wish there was an 8 team playoff, but even then, if it is not one of the top 4 teams that win, people will still argue that the 9th team should have been in the playoffs, and if it is always one of the top 4 teams that win, people will argue that the playoffs are a waste of time.



#1163 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:35 PM

The 5 pest games weren't any involving P12... I guess that's fairly telling and supportive of DirecTV's stance of the biggest and best games are already available.

 

If D* definition of biggest and best games only includes 5 games over a 7 week period, then they aren't even talking to most college football fans.  That definition would probably work for my mother who has probably only seen 5 games on TV all season.



#1164 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 361 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:39 PM

No, it applies to the Big 12 and Big 10, too ;) I would even apply it to the PAC 12 and ACC, but in 2008, Utah was in the Mountain West, and they played a very weak schedule. Beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl was by far their best win of the season. Prior to that, they had not played a team that would make anyone think they were one of the top two teams in the country.

Oklahoma's only loss (prior to losing to Florida in the championship game) was to a 11 and 1 Texas team who then went on to beat Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. It would be very difficult to say that Oklahoma did not belong in the BCS Championship game. One could argue that the Ole Miss loss was a bad loss for Florida, and they did not belong in the championship game, but they beat Oklahoma in the BCS championship game.

I, too, wish there was an 8 team playoff, but even then, if it is not one of the top 4 teams that win, people will still argue that the 9th team should have been in the playoffs, and if it is always one of the top 4 teams that win, people will argue that the playoffs are a waste of time.

Looking back at their schedule, Utah beat 3 teams during the regular season who finished the season ranked in the BCS top 25, plus they beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, who also finished the season ranked in the BCS top 25.

Beating 4 teams in the top 25 isn't good enough for the nation's only undefeated team to be crowned champions?
But it's okay to send Alabama and LSU for a rematch a couple years later even though both teams have a loss and LSU had already beat Alabama during the season?

It's a farce. The SEC always wins because they have an automatic ticket to the game.

Edited by BlackDynamite, 14 October 2013 - 02:41 PM.


#1165 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,204 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 14 October 2013 - 02:46 PM

If D* definition of biggest and best games only includes 5 games over a 7 week period, then they aren't even talking to most college football fans.  That definition would probably work for my mother who has probably only seen 5 games on TV all season.

I'm a huge fan, watching games constantly, and I've wished for P12N games a few times. To most fans, not like myself or P12 centric fans, the P12N is quite insignificant. The games most want to see and will be seen, are picked up by major networks. You've got to put aside personal bias with this... it's hard, I know. I love Longhorns football, but I realize the channel is pointless to the rest of DirecTV.


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

#1166 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,528 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:11 PM

 

Of course every team plays cupcakes.  That misses the point, the difference has always been the number of cupcakes the SEC plays.  Below shows the number of home games each team has played against non-AQ opponents (removing any top 25, e.g. good non-AQ) since 2006 (the year the NCAA fully adopted the 12 game schedule).  (http://www.cfbtrivia...ortby=GP&cres=1)

 

Auburn 20 LSU 19 Florida 19 Arkansas 19 Alabama 19 Tennessee 19 Kentucky 19 Texas A&M 18 South Carolina 17 Mississippi 17 Mississippi St. 16 Missouri 15 Georgia 14 Vanderbilt 12 Arizona St. 12 Oregon 11 Arizona 11 Washington St. 9 Washington 8 Utah 8 Oregon St. 8 California 7 UCLA 7 Stanford 7 Colorado 7 USC 3

 

 

 

Teams do this as much for revenue as anything else. Everyone wants seven home games now - some teams actually play EIGHT home games in a season! If you have 100,000 seats to fill as some teams in the B1G and SEC do and charge say $75 per ticket that's an extra $7.5 million you get with another home game. Even if you pay someone a million to show up and get beat that's a lot of money!

 

I wish the committee that will determine who plays in a playoff made it known that they'd count playing more than half your games at home (counting neutral site games as half a home game) against you if other teams under consideration played fewer.

 

Then teams would be more willing to schedule real opponents, rather than paying a mid-major or FCS team to show up in their home stadium, or playing a game at a "neutral site" that's basically a home game for one of the participants.

 

Now that most conferences have 9 conference games, you're screwed if you have a yearly rival that's in an AQ conference and thus do a home and home with you. When you have 5 conference home games, you play your rival on his turf, when you have four you play on your turf. That's 5 away games either way, so you can't schedule any AQ opponents with one of your other two games if you want to get to 7, because they're going to want a home and home. So you see more and more of these stupid neutral site games. Who wants to see college teams play in a pro stadium? The atmosphere in the college stadiums can't be beat, playing at Soldier Field or the Cowboys home stadium or Yankee stadium just isn't the same.

 

This is probably why the B1G / Pac 12 scheduling alliance that was being discussed fell apart. The Pac 12 teams were playing 9 conference games at the time, and knew doing this would mean if they wanted 7 home games they'd never be able to schedule any home and home. Take USC for example, they play a home and home with ND, in the years they played at ND they'd get only 6 home games. Now the B1G is moving to 9 conference games next year - they probably wouldn't have if the Pac 12 hadn't backed out. That 7th home game really reduces the amount of interesting games between AQ conferences we'd otherwise see.


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


#1167 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,860 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:21 PM

ESPN has an article today "Reviewing the First Half of 2013."  Included is their list of the top 5 upsets of the season.  According to ESPN the biggest and 2nd biggest upsets of the season have occurred on, wait for it...  The PAC-12 Networks.  http://espn.go.com/n...idseason-review

 

Biggest upsets
 

1. Utah 27, No. 5 Stanford 21, Oct. 12

The Utes turned away the Cardinal on two plays from their 6-yard line in the final minute to pull off their biggest victory as Pac-12 members. Stanford quarterback Kevin Hogan threw two straight incompletions, ending the Cardinal's 13-game winning streak.

 

2. Eastern Washington 49, No. 25 Oregon State 46, Aug. 31
The Eagles became the third FCS team to defeat a ranked FBS foe by piling up 625 yards of offense in a stunning victory on the road. Eagles quarterbackVernon Adams passed for 411 yards with four touchdowns and ran for 107 with two scores, including the winning 2-yard run with 18 seconds left.

 

 

I'm confused. When did we equate "must see" or good football with upsets?


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

#1168 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:24 PM

The games most want to see and will be seen, are picked up by major networks.

 

I'm not suggesting that every game, or even most games, fall under that category.  But an upset of a top 5 team by an unranked team with a goal line stance in the waning second falls under the category of "the games most want to see," nor is it an insignificant game in the national championship race.

 

Last year there were only 11 regular season games pitting a top 5 team against a top 15 team in all of college football.  One of them was on the P12N. Does that count as a game most want to see?

 

I would completely buy into your above statement if it said "MOST of the games most want to see..." but because the P12N isn't pure 3rd tier rights (i.e. only picking after ESPN and FOX) they wind up with some pretty descent games every few weeks.



#1169 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:29 PM

I'm confused. When did we equate "must see" or good football with upsets?

Yeah, you never see a bump in TV ratings when an underdog has a lead on a highly ranked team near the end of the game...   ;)

Aren't we talking about what people like to watch on TV?



#1170 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,860 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:29 PM

Teams do this as much for revenue as anything else. Everyone wants seven home games now - some teams actually play EIGHT home games in a season! If you have 100,000 seats to fill as some teams in the B1G and SEC do and charge say $75 per ticket that's an extra $7.5 million you get with another home game. Even if you pay someone a million to show up and get beat that's a lot of money!

 

I wish the committee that will determine who plays in a playoff made it known that they'd count playing more than half your games at home (counting neutral site games as half a home game) against you if other teams under consideration played fewer.

 

Then teams would be more willing to schedule real opponents, rather than paying a mid-major or FCS team to show up in their home stadium, or playing a game at a "neutral site" that's basically a home game for one of the participants.

 

Now that most conferences have 9 conference games, you're screwed if you have a yearly rival that's in an AQ conference and thus do a home and home with you. When you have 5 conference home games, you play your rival on his turf, when you have four you play on your turf. That's 5 away games either way, so you can't schedule any AQ opponents with one of your other two games if you want to get to 7, because they're going to want a home and home. So you see more and more of these stupid neutral site games. Who wants to see college teams play in a pro stadium? The atmosphere in the college stadiums can't be beat, playing at Soldier Field or the Cowboys home stadium or Yankee stadium just isn't the same.

 

This is probably why the B1G / Pac 12 scheduling alliance that was being discussed fell apart. The Pac 12 teams were playing 9 conference games at the time, and knew doing this would mean if they wanted 7 home games they'd never be able to schedule any home and home. Take USC for example, they play a home and home with ND, in the years they played at ND they'd get only 6 home games. Now the B1G is moving to 9 conference games next year - they probably wouldn't have if the Pac 12 hadn't backed out. That 7th home game really reduces the amount of interesting games between AQ conferences we'd otherwise see.

 

 

Okay. Where to start. The playoff criteria have already been made known and cupcakes will be taken into consideration. Not the number of home games because you can get a non-cupcake like Boise State to play on the road (they want the recognition and money and know they can't get a lot of big programs to go to Idaho; the issue is that the big boys don't see anything in it for them and it is hard for BSU to schedule any games, even away).

 

The cupcake criterion is leading schools away from FCS teams. In fact, the Big Ten is heavily encouraging its schools to not have any FCS teams on their schedule anymore. They have been dropping them. But you also see more big games being scheduled, even by SEC (notorious for playing in state and really bad non-conference games except for rivalries) with new announcements almost every day.

 

You did get the Big Ten/PAC 12 thing right. They are still trying to schedule each other when they can but the agreement for a Big Ten/PAC 12 "challenge" every year got spiked because of the lack of non-conference slots. And the Big Ten went to 9 conference games as a result as removing FCS schools from the waters makes it harder for everyone to schedule 4 non conference games. (Think more Indiana and Illinois rather than Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan.)  The result actually hurts the bigger schools who often play all 4 non-con games at home, or maybe one away (they lose a home game opportunity every other year). But it helps the conference overall in terms of better position for playoffs and better schedules for the middle and lower schools.


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

#1171 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,860 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:35 PM

Yeah, you never see a bump in TV ratings when an underdog has a lead on a highly ranked team near the end of the game...   ;)

Aren't we talking about what people like to watch on TV?

 

Not significant enough to make a difference for carriage. For one thing, ratings near the "end of the game" don't really impact the game overall and the ratings in the pool for the channel. You are talking about half an hour of a slight uptick versus 167.5 hours the rest of the week. Even if you get half a million people tuning in for that half an hour, that means nothing overall.

 

Of course, there also has to be interest in the teams. Oregon St has no footprint nationally. You tell someone that EWU is upsetting Oregon State and they will most likely shrug.

 

Where the upset helps is in branding. The highlights get out there with your station's name on it. Ask the Big Ten. BTN got a big branding boost by Appy State beating Michigan, not a big ratings boost. Of course, Appy State beating Michigan is bigger news than either of the upsets you posit. Because Michigan is seen (incorrectly the last few years) as a world beater. Oregon State is not and Utah beating Stanford is no bigger than Northwestern beating Michigan State a few years ago. Not must see TV by any long shot.

 

You list actually shows how few upsets there have been so far this year (until this weekend). Which was noted heavily on just about every talk show. Where Utah/Stanford got lost in something like seven upsets.


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

#1172 OFFLINE   BlackDynamite

BlackDynamite

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 361 posts
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:56 PM

Not significant enough to make a difference for carriage. For one thing, ratings near the "end of the game" don't really impact the game overall and the ratings in the pool for the channel. You are talking about half an hour of a slight uptick versus 167.5 hours the rest of the week. Even if you get half a million people tuning in for that half an hour, that means nothing overall.

Of course, there also has to be interest in the teams. Oregon St has no footprint nationally. You tell someone that EWU is upsetting Oregon State and they will most likely shrug.

Where the upset helps is in branding. The highlights get out there with your station's name on it. Ask the Big Ten. BTN got a big branding boost by Appy State beating Michigan, not a big ratings boost. Of course, Appy State beating Michigan is bigger news than either of the upsets you posit. Because Michigan is seen (incorrectly the last few years) as a world beater. Oregon State is not and Utah beating Stanford is no bigger than Northwestern beating Michigan State a few years ago. Not must see TV by any long shot.

You list actually shows how few upsets there have been so far this year (until this weekend). Which was noted heavily on just about every talk show. Where Utah/Stanford got lost in something like seven upsets.

Utah/Stanford absolutely was must see tv to fans of teams in contention for the BCS championship game. Stanford had the inside track to the championship game, so many fans of other teams were praying they would lose a game.

#1173 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:59 PM

Not significant enough to make a difference for carriage. For one thing, ratings near the "end of the game" don't really impact the game overall and the ratings in the pool for the channel. You are talking about half an hour of a slight uptick versus 167.5 hours the rest of the week. Even if you get half a million people tuning in for that half an hour, that means nothing overall.

 

Of course, there also has to be interest in the teams. Oregon St has no footprint nationally. You tell someone that EWU is upsetting Oregon State and they will most likely shrug.

 

Where the upset helps is in branding. The highlights get out there with your station's name on it. Ask the Big Ten. BTN got a big branding boost by Appy State beating Michigan, not a big ratings boost. Of course, Appy State beating Michigan is bigger news than either of the upsets you posit. Because Michigan is seen (incorrectly the last few years) as a world beater. Oregon State is not and Utah beating Stanford is no bigger than Northwestern beating Michigan State a few years ago. Not must see TV by any long shot.

 

You list actually shows how few upsets there have been so far this year (until this weekend). Which was noted heavily on just about every talk show. Where Utah/Stanford got lost in something like seven upsets.

 

Hard to say that Utah/Stanford got lost as that was the headliner on ESPN and other college football sites in their post Saturday coverage, but I do agree with some of your points.  However, I was reading a message board over at SEC Rant during the 3rd quarter of the Stanford game.  There were quite a few SEC fans trying to figure out how to watch the end of the game.  One quote appropriate for this website was, in a fan's frustration of not being able to get the game on D*, said "DirecTV needs to trade the BTN for the P12N."

 

There is a perception that the P12N's only value is to the most ardent fans of P12 schools.  My contention is good upsets, games that impact the national championship race, games that impact the conference races... are pieces that provide some value to the non-diehard.  It may not be enough for carriage, as you say.  But anytime you have SEC fans talking about wanting to watch something on the P12N, that's a good sign for the network.



#1174 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,204 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 14 October 2013 - 04:06 PM

Utah/Stanford absolutely was must see tv to fans of teams in contention for the BCS championship game. Stanford had the inside track to the championship game, so many fans of other teams were praying they would lose a game.

How did Stanford have the inside track when they need help? They'd need whoever wins FSU/Clemson to later lose and Alabama to lose. With the ACC having 3 excellent teams, the P12 winner will need help for anyone besides Oregon to get a shot.


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

#1175 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 74 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 14 October 2013 - 04:19 PM

How did Stanford have the inside track when they need help? They'd need whoever wins FSU/Clemson to later lose and Alabama to lose. With the ACC having 3 excellent teams, the P12 winner will need help for anyone besides Oregon to get a shot.

 

Most "experts" were saying the winner of Oregon/Stanford game (assuming they went undefeated) was a near lock for the NCG, and it was FSU/Clemson that needed help.  Now a Stanford win over Oregon will no longer block those teams, but opens the door wide open for an undefeated ACC champ or Ohio State.

 

Last night, on ESPN's BCS Countdown, they said UCLA still holds its own destiny, as they have games against UW, Stanford, and Oregon all coming up.  The ACC schools need both UCLA and Oregon to lose, but with UW and Stanford already with losses, they've got half the P12 title contenders out of the way.


Edited by chillyfl, 14 October 2013 - 04:23 PM.





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