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

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV

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

  1. Jul 26, 2013 #181 of 3046
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,205
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    Ok first people stop thinking that the time zone is the problem. As I recall everyone has said that out or market they are fine with dtv putting the channels in the sports teir. That's not the issue. The issue is the price in market. It won't affect ratings on this case.

    Second DIRECTV is getting screwed along with all the others who picked up this channel. While there is some additional marginal benefit the benefit is to tiny for the prices they want to move all these games to a new channel. The pac12 essentially wanted a full new channel and money for arguably the same amount of content that wil actually drive people to want these channels.

    I do think this is the first shot Over the bow. I think the Lakers where the last RSN in. I don't think they pick up sec or Dodgers channels in full teirs. At some point someone has to take the leap and push back and DIRECTV seems to be one of the few that have the guts. I just hope they hold the line with the new Dodgers channel.

    I hate it but I think it right. Pac12 should let dtv have the channel on is own or in the sports pack everywhere and be happy.

    I have a feeling FOX sports won't be on directv either.
     
  2. Jul 26, 2013 #182 of 3046
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,347
    243
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    People will leave if their RSN's aren't available. I don't see FSN going anywhere anytime soon, they need D* more.

    If D* really wants to "draw the line" on higher priced RSN's then they need to step up and allow for their own RSN's to be put into a separate sports tier.

    But again, when you have some of the major providers owning RSN's its going to be harder and harder to do.
     
  3. Jul 26, 2013 #183 of 3046
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,190
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    There is always SOME leader. You can't say there is no leader in a NASCAR race because no one has reached 300 MPH on the track ... the leader is the one out front, regardless of how far the race has progressed. Different people may have different opinions as to who is leading - discounting some programming and focusing on other programming. But there can be a leader even if not every channel is carried by any of the providers.
     
  4. Jul 26, 2013 #184 of 3046
    Rob

    Rob Icon

    613
    9
    Apr 22, 2002
    Right now, I get one channel dedicated to the Padres, another to the Lakers, and two more for the Clippers, Kings, and Ducks. $2 extra a month. And now I need one more to watch PAC 12.
     
  5. Jul 26, 2013 #185 of 3046
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,205
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    I talking about the new fox sports 1 and 2 channels. The national ones, not the rsns.
     
  6. Jul 26, 2013 #186 of 3046
    shyvoodoo

    shyvoodoo AllStar

    123
    7
    Jun 24, 2011
    LOLOLOLOL... He joking right?!?!?
     
  7. Jul 26, 2013 #187 of 3046
    shyvoodoo

    shyvoodoo AllStar

    123
    7
    Jun 24, 2011
  8. Jul 26, 2013 #188 of 3046
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,399
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Larry Scott is such a class act. And the jerk who's either the AD of Cal (Berkeley) or in some spokesperson position is even worse. Dunno about the other AD's; certainly some of them are just fine.
     
  9. Jul 27, 2013 #189 of 3046
    carlsbad_bolt_fan

    carlsbad_bolt_fan Icon

    803
    16
    May 18, 2004
    Carlsbad, CA
    Still nothing new on this front. I'd suggest bailing out and going with a better TV provider that actually gives its customers what they want and doesn't lie and call themselves "the sports leader" when they refuse to give an entire region their full slate of football games.

    Lie? Just because they haven't signed an agreement with the PAC 12 network? Lol!

    They do have more sports IN TOTAL compared to other providers. Not carrying the PAC 12 network doesn't make that any less true.
     
  10. Jul 27, 2013 #190 of 3046
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,205
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    Saw an article somewhere that had someone from of the schools in the pac12 say that the fans need to stop blaming the pac12 and siding with DIRECTV because other carriers have picked up the channel, they need to start siding with pac12 and drop DIRECTV. Tells me they are getting a lot of complaints.
     
  11. Jul 27, 2013 #191 of 3046
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,345
    503
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    Based on DirecTV's tweet last night, PAC12 wants too much money and across too many DirecTV customers. DirecTV either wants it cheap enough to go to everyone, or let just those that want it pay for it.
     
  12. Jul 27, 2013 #192 of 3046
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,399
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    That's been the position all along, IIRC.

    Interesting that someone from Pac12 made a point of mentioning 1.4 million DIRECTV subs in S. California. Now, the number of subs that are Pac 12 alums AND care to watch a lot of Pac 12 minor sports, that'd be the figure that'd be interesting. A few thousand? Tens of thousands?

    Now, there will be some interesting FB games that are P-12 only, but between Fox and ESPN, I will get my fill of that conference's games.
     
  13. Jul 27, 2013 #193 of 3046
    shyvoodoo

    shyvoodoo AllStar

    123
    7
    Jun 24, 2011
    DirecTV is making it harder and harder for P12 Network to gain support from subscribers. D* even without P12 still is the best option for sports fans. Now D* just confirmed they will have access to ALL 380 EPL games this season...
     
  14. Jul 27, 2013 #194 of 3046
    tjguitar

    tjguitar Mentor

    157
    9
    Aug 23, 2006
    It really just depends on what sports channels you want. For example, DirecTV has WGN in a higher tier, while TWC has it included in the basic OTA-only package. DirecTV was late to add TWCSN. It may be late to add the Dodgers channel as well. We'll see what happens next spring.
     
  15. Jul 27, 2013 #195 of 3046
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,399
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Wow! Footie (soccer) overload!
     
  16. Jul 27, 2013 #196 of 3046
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    You make some good points. However, D* has to serve many customers....correct? Those that want sports, those that do not. For those that truly want Pac 12, there is disappointment of course. For those that don't want Pac 12, don't care about sports, absolutely have no interest at all and are trying to keep their monthly expenses down, they have to pay for this channel which makes them just as unhappy as those Pac 12 customers that want the channel but can't get it. Two sets of customers, two widely different viewpoints. That's the rub with the entire sports model. Yes, I realize people have to pay for other channels they don't watch that aren't sports channels, but they are not in the same economic ballpark when comparing a few pennies for a channel vs much much more in the sports genre.

    That's the interesting paradigm. D* is listening to their customers, but they have many customers with differing points of view. There are many more that don't want Pac 12 vs those that do when faced with the reality that their bills will go up. This is why D* would like to serve your interests and allow you to buy it, but also serve the other customers interests that have no desire to add cost to their bill for something they have no desire to watch...ever. Because the sports channels are demanding high rates AND wide distribution, that inheritently causes this issue. Takes two to tango. One could just as easily argue the Pac 12 has no interest in truly getting their product to D* Pac 12 subscribers, if they did they would allow it to be sold to them a la carte which D* has offered since day one. Instead they want to sell it in to as many customers as they can, regardless if they even can name one Pac 12 university. So it cuts both ways.

    These are just my opinions, totally mine and not reflective of the company or anyone else. A recent Wall Street Journal article from a few weeks ago showed sports programming only being viewed at 4% yet amounting to almost 20% of the cost.

    Worth a read. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323823004578595571950242766.html
     
    2 people like this.
  17. Jul 27, 2013 #197 of 3046
    Eksynyt

    Eksynyt Icon

    870
    11
    Feb 8, 2008
    If it's such a big deal then why have all of the other major providers agreed to terms? Answer...because DirecTV is cheap and they are abandoning the business model that used to make them great.
     
  18. Jul 27, 2013 #198 of 3046
    chillyfl

    chillyfl Cool Member

    74
    6
    Sep 11, 2012
    For the record, DirecTV waged a fairly misleading campaign last fall. The message they were trying to put out was that you aren't missing anything by not having the P12N. So they would indicate a really low number of football games scheduled for the P12N, compared to total number of P12 games. For example, the website would say: of the 144 total PAC-12 games during the season, only 4 are currently scheduled for the P12N. Why was this misleading? In order to get 144 games they double counted any game involving 2 PAC-12 teams (12 teams times 12 games equals 144... right?), but in reality there were only 90 physical games. Of course they didn't use the same logic when counting games scheduled on PAC-12 Net. But the low number of games scheduled reflected the fact that most P12N games weren't known until the 6/12 day prior scheduling window occurred. So while there might be 30 more games to occur on the P12N, only a small number were actually scheduled at that point, so DirecTV would use the number currently schedule. If you called them on the phone last year, they had similar talking points. It should be noted, that after about 3 weeks, they did eventually stop using the 144 game number, as I think someone convinced them that was manipulating the numbers too far.

    The reality was it depended on which team you routed for. Oregon and USC only had 3 games each on the P12N. Of course one of Oregon's games was against #16 Oregon State in the Civil War, and the USC vs. ASU game was significant for the South Division race and USC/Cal was played before it was clear just how bad Cal was. There were several times where the best game on at that time of day was on the P12N, like the Oklahoma State at Arizona game, and a few games that didn't look that great going into the game, but wound up being good games, like Stanford's 20-17 win over a team ranked #21 at the end of the year, San Jose St. Now if you were a Cal fan, 7 of their 12 games were played on the PAC-12 Network, so while the season was a huge disappointment, you would have missed the majority of the games (maybe not such a bad thing). The average was 4.5 out of 12 regular season games per school that was only on the P12N. And then when you look at Arizona vs UCLA in basketball being played on P12N last year, the number of top 10 matchups (UO, OSU, UCLA) in baseball that were on the P12N, and shoot even #2 Florida vs #7 Utah in gymnastics (watched it with my daughters) was a phenomenal meet that came down to the very last score (Utah won)... there was a lot of good stuff on the network.

    My point is this, DirercTV waged a deceptive campaign to make their customers believe they wouldn't miss any meaningful games. And while there are plenty of games vs. cupcakes that won't move the needle, there are still enough games in both quality and quantity that every school's fanbase will be disappointed at some point during the season at what game(s) they will miss out on if they are still with DirecTV.
     
  19. Jul 27, 2013 #199 of 3046
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,347
    243
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Well D* better get used to it. Because with the major providers owning RSN's I don't think the sports model is going to change anytime soon unless ALL providers come on board with it, including D* Root sports.
     
  20. Jul 27, 2013 #200 of 3046
    kick4fun

    kick4fun Godfather

    487
    6
    Aug 9, 2006
    I think Larry Scott has done a wonderful job. Despite the few who criticize his job, he has brought a lot of money to the Pac12 through tv contracts and a new network. The Cal AD video was funny and I think just because she dumped Directv, I found it entertaining. Larry Scott has been a major player for the Pac12 and I'm certainly glad to be a part of this exciting conference.
     

Share This Page