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. Oct 5, 2017 #3041 of 3095
    BigJ52

    BigJ52 Godfather

    350
    11
    Jul 29, 2007
    Nice to know the Chinese can now get it before us

     
    APB101 likes this.
  2. Oct 5, 2017 #3042 of 3095
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,768
    42
    Jul 21, 2008
    I think the cost is a lot lower per sub then the in market rate
     
  3. Oct 5, 2017 #3043 of 3095
    nvsundevil

    nvsundevil Member

    85
    18
    Aug 6, 2013
    Nevada
    Seriously!!!!
     
  4. BigJ52

    BigJ52 Godfather

    350
    11
    Jul 29, 2007
    Doesn't help us at all but:

     
    ShowYouTV likes this.
  5. BigJ52

    BigJ52 Godfather

    350
    11
    Jul 29, 2007
     
  6. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    562
    33
    Aug 11, 2008
    The Pac-12, like the Cubs, missed their window.
    Difficult to see how any distributors will ask a subscriber to pay more for sports channels he doesn't watch
     
  7. nvsundevil

    nvsundevil Member

    85
    18
    Aug 6, 2013
    Nevada
    dlvr.it/Pwmk4l

    Article sounds as if the natives are getting restless and that all is not as well as Larry Scott would have us believe!
     
  8. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    8,369
    908
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    The gap is even worse than what was quoted in that article. The Big Ten will distribute over $50 million per school in the 2017-2018 (current) season, the first year the new split ABC/ESPN and Fox/FS1 contract goes into force.

    The Pac 12's revenue presumably goes up a bit from the $27 million quoted since TV contracts usually pay a bit more each year, but that still leaves at least a $20 million gap per team. Getting Pac 12 on Directv wouldn't really help much, it would only add $3 - $4 million a year. Even if the Pac 12 Network paid what BTN and SECN do, they'd still be well over $10 million behind.

    The Pac 12 simply cannot get the kind of TV money the others can because of the time zone. The earliest games don't start until 2 or 3 eastern, so they miss out on that noon eastern time slot entirely, and their night games finish well after midnight so many out east don't watch. Unless they want to add 9am starts and abandon night games, there really isn't any way to get around this problem.
     
  9. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,768
    42
    Jul 21, 2008
    the cubs have to do something and if they can pull in the hawks then can let jerry reinsdorf fend on his own with the bulls and sox.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  10. BigJ52

    BigJ52 Godfather

    350
    11
    Jul 29, 2007
    Feel bad for people losing their job but it doesn't surprise me:

     
  11. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,843
    1,265
    Nov 13, 2006
    The boss is the one show should be fired for not making wider distribution deals.
     
    APB101 and Coachbulldog like this.
  12. Coachbulldog

    Coachbulldog Member

    82
    19
    Nov 17, 2014
    Utah
    It amazes me the Pac12 presidents and athletic directors still support Larry Scott.
     
  13. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    8,369
    908
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    The reason they are announcing this cost-cutting is probably to improve the bottom line and make good (or come closer to making good) on whatever promises he made them about revenue distribution to the schools or the growth in that revenue distribution.

    It certainly isn't good for the long term of the Pac 12 Network, but every year he can keep his job he pockets another $4 million and he doesn't have to care what condition the network is in when he's finally forced out (or sees the writing on the wall over this debacle and announces his retirement)
     
    Coachbulldog likes this.
  14. Coachbulldog

    Coachbulldog Member

    82
    19
    Nov 17, 2014
    Utah
    This thread began June, 2013. I thought the Pac12 v Directv impasse would be resolved after maybe one year. When AT&T acquired Directv, I again believed some type of a deal would be finalized. But here we are, almost five years later, and there is no end in sight. I live in a Pac12 market and would enjoy having Pac12 Network available to watch. But I am like a lot of sports fans the Pac12 area, I'm not going to move from Directv to another provider for Pac12 network. As mentioned in a previous thread, making a deal with Directv isn't going to give schools a windfall of cash but it would be a step in the right direction.
     
    nvsundevil and majikmarker like this.
  15. BigJ52

    BigJ52 Godfather

    350
    11
    Jul 29, 2007


    "The final big-picture topic on my agenda was the conference’s relationship with AT&T. At stake is carriage on DirecTV and so much more.

    In 2013, the Pac-12 agreed to a sweeping partnership with AT&T that included equipment, signage in arenas and stadiums, wireless sponsorships and U-verse distribution. The contract expires this summer.

    Might the comprehensive nature of the partnership force the sides to finally agree on DirecTV distribution?

    Or might the DirecTV impasse prompt AT&T to walk away from the conference altogether, taking U-verse with it?

    Shuken seemed to draw a line in the airwaves.

    “The AT&T sponsorship works very well for both entities,’’ he said. “The fact that DirecTV does not carry the networks does not work for us, and we’re not inclined to treat those as separate initiatives.

    “We’re hopeful that DirecTV will choose to launch the networks the way everyone else carries the networks.

    “But I would rather work with another wireless partner than an entity whose television partner doesn’t choose to carry the networks.”
     
    jw_rally likes this.
  16. Coachbulldog

    Coachbulldog Member

    82
    19
    Nov 17, 2014
    Utah
    Thank you for posting this. With the partnership with AT&T expiring soon, the PAC12 does have some leverage. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months.
     
  17. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,444
    598
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Mr. Shuken's remarks seem a bit hostile and threatening to DIRECTV®, though I may be misinterpreting what he reportedly said.
     
  18. jw_rally

    jw_rally Active Member

    173
    48
    Jul 28, 2014
    Ohio
    I don't know if it is hostile, but it is straight and to the point which provides a framework for the discussion. Hopefully, things get worked out. Personally, I would like to have the Pac-12 Networks on DIRECTV.
     
  19. mws192

    mws192 Godfather

    543
    29
    Jun 17, 2010
    All I take from those quotes is that the status quo is going to change when the UVerse deal is up, to which I would say that is not one bit surprising.
     
  20. James Long

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

    46,817
    1,160
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    A mild threat ... "if we can't have your DIRECTV business then you may lose us for AT&T/Uverse." Turning away paying subscribers seems to be a bad business decision, but I can see Pac-12 wanting to jack up the prices for a "Uverse only" renewal.
     

Share This Page