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. Sep 26, 2013 #961 of 2973
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    The Big10 region is bigger both geographically and by population than the Pac 12 region is. Also, since the Big10 schools are in the eastern and central time zones, their games are in prime time for a much larger portion of the natioinal population. So far, the football game involving a PAC 12 school that had the highest television rating was a game involving a Big10 school.

    Being the first certainly helped the Big10 network, but higher viewer ratings also brings better treatment by DirecTV. PAC 12 games do not draw large television audiences regardless of on which network they are shown (unless they are against non-conference opponents that do draw well such as Notre Dame, most BIG 10 schools, most Big 12 schools, or most SEC schools).
     
    2 people like this.
  2. Sep 26, 2013 #962 of 2973
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    325
    25
    Apr 16, 2012
    LOL of course you did. I bolded your statement when I asked you to provide proof!


    Sandra
     
  3. Sep 26, 2013 #963 of 2973
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,365
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Categorical statements do not include such qualifiers as "I bet", or "pretty slim".
     
  4. Sep 26, 2013 #964 of 2973
    sum_random_dork

    sum_random_dork Icon

    911
    18
    Aug 21, 2008
    And your basis for this is what? You have been told how much Pac 12 wanted? You know how much each channel DirecTV carries has raised their rates? I don't think you can make the statement you have made there at all. DirecTV is raising their rates because they want to...to satisfy the needs of their shareholders. Pac12 has nothing to do with rates going up or not....If that were true then why did DirecTV put in a rate increase for SF Bay Area customers "due to sports costs" but never added Pac 12 networks?
     
  5. Sep 26, 2013 #965 of 2973
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    325
    25
    Apr 16, 2012
    Label it whatever you like, you made a statement you cannot support with actual facts.

    We can leave it at that.


    Sandra
     
  6. Sep 26, 2013 #966 of 2973
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    4,411
    602
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Despite both now being owned by Comcast, they still continue to charge providers seperately for CSN California and CSN Bay Area like it was when CSN Bay Area was Rainbow owned FSN Bay Area.
     
  7. Sep 26, 2013 #967 of 2973
    jerrylove56

    jerrylove56 Godfather

    467
    14
    Jun 14, 2008
    North Alabama
    James, the BTN and PAC-12 networks far exceed the "norm" of a RSN.
    I believe the BTN success is simple: a. Its footprint encapsulates some of the nations largest TV markets (Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, , etc.)
    The PAC-12 footprints contains large tv markets like LA, San Fran, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, etc.
     
  8. Sep 26, 2013 #968 of 2973
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,355
    735
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    They may exceed what's normal for an RSN, but neither are truly national in the same way that say NFL Network is. There aren't any rules on how big a "region" for an RSN may be. Regional simply means "not of national interest". Sure there are people living in Chicago who want to watch Pac 12 games just as there are people living in Florida who want to watch B1G games. But that doesn't mean that everyone in the whole nation should be forced to pay for them against their will.


    BTN being in a basic package is an accident of history, because they were first, and have the largest following of any conference (yes, even bigger than the SEC - due to the size of the schools meaning many more alumni) There is no guarantee Directv will be willing to keep them there when the contract comes up in a year or two. But if they give Pac 12 the same deal, then SEC, ACC and Big 12 conferences will want the same for their networks, and costs will go up in those basic packages. Maybe college sports fans are fine paying an extra $5/month (or whatever it would be) for all those networks in a basic tier, but the 50% of people who don't watch sports certainly won't be.

    Look at how much whining there is in the thread about Directv announcing price increases smaller than they've been for the past few years (which people are taking to mean less than 4.5%) Add a bunch of conference networks and that increase is more like 10%.
     
  9. Sep 27, 2013 #969 of 2973
    mrdobolina

    mrdobolina AllStar

    396
    15
    Aug 28, 2006
    A Mile High
    Could the numerous upcoming college conference networks become the first "RSNs" that are all offered separately as their own package? For instance, I personally would never subscribe to the DirecTV Sports Pack (or whatever it's called) simpley because I don't need to be able to see 100 channels for RSNs from every part of the country. However, I would drop an extra $5-$7 if there was a package that included Big10, Pac12, SEC, Big12 (Well, I probably wouldn't watch that channel), etc., etc. Not each channel ala carte, mind you, but their own package, much like the HD Extra Pack.

    Slice, you're saying there is no way BTN gets the same deal for more $$ when their contract comes up. I'm saying I agree with you, and that they should just bundle all of these College Conference channels together and sell it that way. It's semi-ala carte.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Sep 27, 2013 #970 of 2973
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,355
    735
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    I'm not saying there's no way BTN gets the same deal they have now, just that it is possible. BTN has a wildcard the others don't. FOX owns half the network, and also owns a controlling interest in YES. Speculation about that purchase of YES shortly after the B1G announced the addition of Maryland and Rutgers was that it would try to leverage the fact YES is so important in NYC to get BTN on basic cable in the NYC area. Simply due to the size of BTN's footprint in major cities now, and FOX being able to leverage YES (and now FS1, which comes up for renewal around the time BTN and YES do) they might be able to force continued carriage in basic packages and even expand that nationwide. SEC might have similar leverage since I believe they're partnered with ESPN, though that would be years out before they can try it.

    Pac 12 is solely owned by the conference, so as a standalone has no leverage. Thus BTN and perhaps SEC may get treatment that Pac 12 cannot. It all depends on how hard FOX pushes in the negotiations and how hard Directv and others push back. That's the advantage of partnering with someone, instead of going it alone like Pac 12.
     
  11. Sep 27, 2013 #971 of 2973
    mrdobolina

    mrdobolina AllStar

    396
    15
    Aug 28, 2006
    A Mile High
    Yeah, sorry, slice. I misread "no guarantee" as "It's guaranteed"
     
  12. Sep 27, 2013 #972 of 2973
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The reasoning behind the YES portion of that deal is that Fox is taking over 100% of YES soon and there was (is?) conjecture that YES is going to carry some Big Ten games. I think it was more about getting bigger YES coverage than leveraging BTN into the New York market, which it already is since Rutgers is joining.
     
  13. Sep 27, 2013 #973 of 2973
    jerrylove56

    jerrylove56 Godfather

    467
    14
    Jun 14, 2008
    North Alabama
    I understand your comments about the size of RSN's but I don't agree. In regard to the pending price increase from DTV, I wouldn't call customers not being happy with paying more for the same or less "whining". My point, if you're going to jack my rates up at least give me something worth the price. More is better than less or nothing. If DTV wants to cut cost start pruning some of the channels that play endless reruns and paid programming.
     
  14. Sep 27, 2013 #974 of 2973
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,355
    735
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    I don't think Rutgers joining the B1G would be enough to get carriage in NYC on its own. That's a pro sports town, and even though Rutgers is in their backyard, that doesn't mean there is a big enough demand from that to force BTN on NYC basic cable. However, bundling BTN and YES together in a take it or leave it deal would guarantee they both get on basic cable, since YES carries hundreds of NYC pro games a year in baseball, basketball and hockey.
     
  15. Sep 27, 2013 #975 of 2973
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,355
    735
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Problem is, those channels that play endless reruns and paid programming cost Directv pennies. You could cut out dozens of those channels before you'd equal what they'd pay for just one conference network.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. Sep 27, 2013 #976 of 2973
    Bill Broderick

    Bill Broderick Icon

    2,352
    173
    Aug 25, 2006
    Long Island
    I tend to agree. IMO, the B1G took Rutgers because there is already a large contingent of B1G alumni in the NY area. Having a full schedule of B1G games in NJ will attract large crowds (mostly fans of the opposing team) which, in turn, may lead to increased donations to alma maters. Look at the crowd for last week's Michigan / UConn game. There were nearly as many people in Michigan clothing as in UConn clothing. Had UConn agreed to play the game at Met Life lr Gillette Stadium, they would have also been sold out with a lot more Michigan fans.
     
  17. Sep 28, 2013 #977 of 2973
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,355
    735
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Yeah, wouldn't be shocked to see one or two Rutgers 'home' games end up being played at Yankee Stadium or Metlife Stadium when they play OSU, Michigan or Penn State. Ditto for Maryland games getting played at RFK. Those schools would probably happily give up some of their home field advantage in return for having so many more seats to sell when they play marquee names with tons of alumni in the area.
     
  18. Sep 28, 2013 #978 of 2973
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Maryland will be playing some games (Penn State in 2015) in Baltimore. RFK is close to being closed down. Redskins play at Fedex. But Maryland has a deal with the state for optional games in Baltimore, where the state owns the stadium.

    Rutgers, so far, has announced no plans to play games elsewhere that I've heard.
     
  19. Sep 28, 2013 #979 of 2973
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,355
    735
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Sorry, I meant Fedex. Can't keep up with all the new football stadiums getting built around the league :)
     
  20. Sep 28, 2013 #980 of 2973
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I can't keep up with the names.
     

Share This Page