# RANT: U.S. Soccer Fans - 2nd class treatment



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Okay - I know this thread is a perfect place for you to express just how much you hate soccer, and how wrong the rest of the world is for thinking its the greatest sport known to man. I encourage you to resist the urge to rip the sport apart in this thread. We all know we Americans have been slow to embrace that which the rest of world realized 50 years ago. Now that that is out of the way...

This rant is short and to the point. Why is it that U.S. soccer fans can't find a good match without forking over the dough?

If I want to watch the Champions League - I have to fork over 15 bux a month.
I have to fork over 12 a month to watch the Premiership. 

And to top it all off - we only get ONE game a week from our OWN BLEEPIN' Pro League. 

D* - it's time to get with the program. Add Fox Soccer Channel to our XTRA, or Gold, or whatever you are calling it package! For 60-70 bucks a month - I ought to have that channel as part of my lineup.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Real football is played in the U.S.   

Serioulsy, I didn't vote. I respect your desire to have content you enjoy though.
I hope it gets added for you in the future.


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

After playing soccer for almost 15 years until a torn ACL, I would still love to play the sport. Now watching it - that's another story. Batata was my coach for a few years and his son went to school with me.

I'll vote but I'm not gonna watch!


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

lol....Who's Batata...Seriously, I don't know.


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

Oh, sorry. Long time player for the Chicago Sting among other teams. I was just surfing around for some old pictures and info and ran across this -->Batata Page


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

I didn't recognize him. Sorry guys, just never got into soceer. I guess I'm no a true sports fan.


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

I didn't expect you to  and I am wondering if JayW knows. It might spark a few memories.  You're a fine Sports fan! :righton:


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Coffey77 said:


> I didn't expect you to  and I am wondering if JayW knows. It might spark a few memories.  You're a fine Sports fan! :righton:


Nope - Don't know any of the Sting Players-

The Express players are our local dudes...

Gus Moffit, Brian Tinian

I would love to stay and watch this thread blossom :sure: 
but I am off to play soccer - Full Field - Indoors - Pray I stay healthy.

Sorry you can't play anymore - but watching should be the next best thing!!!


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> Nope - Don't know any of the Sting Players-
> 
> The Express players are our local dudes...
> 
> ...


See, now I have no idea who those guys are. 

I no longer play soccer, I play a much less violent sport - Hockey.  Atleast there you have pads.


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

I am a soccer fan and one of the reason that I have the sport package is the soccer channels, but even if they move FSC into regular lineups, I will still get the sport package for Goal TV as I am first a Barcelona fan.

But still I voted yes. 

Thanks for the poll


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

You may find out more about soccor on FOX, and maybe RANT a bit in this board.

http://msn.foxsports.com/messageboards


----------



## naijai (Aug 19, 2006)

Well i love soccer but guess what channels are placed according to what the networks charge so dont blame Directv and the Premier League also good but the price too much.The World cup coverage looked good especially in nice lovely HD on ABC and ESPN but if you wanna rant let rant at Fox


----------



## ProfLonghair (Sep 26, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> If I want to watch the Champions League - I have to fork over 15 bux a month.
> I have to fork over 12 a month to watch the Premiership.


As opposed to $20/month for Sunday Ticket?


----------



## BJM (Dec 9, 2006)

I like soccer, but I don't care if they add FSC. I usually only follow the US National team during World Cup and the qualifiers. I suppose I may get drawn into the Beckham hysteria and watch Galaxy games later in the year.


----------



## Peter305 (May 24, 2006)

BJM said:


> I like soccer, but I don't care if they add FSC. I usually only follow the US National team during World Cup and the qualifiers. I suppose I may get drawn into the Beckham hysteria and watch Galaxy games later in the year.


Adding FSC would be great...but I'm not holding my breath.... DirecTV knows that Soccer fans will pay so why throw it in to a basic package?


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> Okay - I know this thread is a perfect place for you to express just how much you hate soccer, and how wrong the rest of the world is for thinking its the greatest sport known to man. I encourage you to resist the urge to rip the sport apart in this thread. We all know we Americans have been slow to embrace that which the rest of world realized 50 years ago. Now that that is out of the way...
> 
> This rant is short and to the point. Why is it that U.S. soccer fans can't find a good match without forking over the dough?
> 
> ...


I hear ya.. there is a high price on sports these days.. but wit that said:

I think the people in the UK pay a high price to watch the Premiership these days too. with Sky Sports and Setanta,and Pay Per View Premiership still exists there. And even with that said, there is an underlying little known fact that the US gets more Live EPL matches on TV than the UK does And they have to pay for a license just to own a tv!


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

ProfLonghair said:


> As opposed to $20/month for Sunday Ticket?


Ahhh-

But with the NFL you can watch from the time you wake up on Sunday until the time you go to bed. Not true with Soccer.

(My game got cancelled - so here I am watching this thread)


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

JayW, who won?


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

speaking of waking up.. I hope I can get up by 7:30 AM Saturday to watch that Liverpool/Man U game! (on Setanta)


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Addressed to original poster :

Your thread title is reactionary and almost over the top.

USA is one of the few places on this planet with so much choice of soccer to watch from so many leagues. Now whether you can get to watch it at prices you can dictate is based on economic laws of supply and demand. As someone else appropriately stated, it is becoming incredibly more expensive to follow English Premiership even in England. And to watch Sky Sports HD coverage, it will cost even more with the HD receiver boxes. Even in China where it used to be a lot cheaper to watch soccer like dirt, it is going to become more expensive, with Guangdong Sports acquiring control of more and more leagues and wanting to charge loads of money. What is going on on US TV is not so out of line.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Addressed to original poster :
> 
> Your thread title is reactionary and almost over the top.
> 
> USA is one of the few places on this planet with so much choice of soccer to watch from so many leagues. Now whether you can get to watch it at prices you can dictate is based on economic laws of supply and demand. As someone else appropriately stated, it is becoming incredibly more expensive to follow English Premiership even in England. And to watch Sky Sports HD coverage, it will cost even more with the HD receiver boxes. Even in China where it used to be a lot cheaper to watch soccer like dirt, it is going to become more expensive, with Guangdong Sports acquiring control of more and more leagues and wanting to charge loads of money. What is going on on US TV is not so out of line.


Well I was not aware that the English folk get charged to watch the English game. That said - unfortunate as it is for them, I don't care.

I don't pay additional money to watch MLB or NFL, and I can watch nearly every game my home team plays. I can watch NFL games and coverage until I am sick without paying additional money. (And yes- if I want to see EVERY game, I can pay additional money.)

There is an expectation in the U.S. that you can get a healthy does of your pro sports without paying extra. I am not talking about a Premiership Package here. I am talking about the Fox Soccer Channel which shows a little of every popular league. The Golf Channel isn't extra, neither is the SPEED channel, or the NFL channel. Those are sport specific stations. All I am saying is make the Soccer Specific station part of the base package as well.

So no, my post is not over the top.

HDTV: we got cancelled


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The original poster shows why soccer will never work in this country.



> We all know we Americans have been slow to embrace that which the rest of world realized 50 years ago. Now that that is out of the way...


An arrogant idea that Americans are somehow "wrong". Maybe the rest of the world is "wrong". Maybe nobody is "wrong", maybe soccer works where it works and does not, and never will work, in our society.

And, while not seen in this post, often combined with the silly, and incorrect, propsition that the entire rest of the world lives for soccer (untrue, it is by far the most popular sport in the world, but hardly a universal passion); that it is inevetiabably coming to North America, often justified by crazy racialist theories about Hispanics; and, often, shots at hockey or other sports that are suposedly "dying".

I could like soccer. Not love it, but enjoy it in a proper context. Except for soccer fans, who are insufferable.

As to the TV issue, that is one of the business reasons that soccer is again failing in North America. Too many leagues. This channel has that. That channel has this. And so on. Of course it costs a lot to follow a sport that has 20 worldwide "club" leagues combined with multiple worldwide "national" competitons.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

SamC said:


> The original poster shows why soccer will never work in this country.


You forgot to quote this part:



jaywdetroit said:


> I encourage you to resist the urge to rip the sport apart in this thread.


Please - let's not turn this thread into a soccer bashing fest. I am fully aware that a good portion of sports fans in the U.S. don't 'get' soccer. Thanks to the media, they never will.

I don't want to debate this in this thread. The purpose of this thread is simply to throw the idea out there that D* should add FSC to its normal channel lineup. If you want to debate the merits of soccer and whether or not it will ever succeed in the U.S. - start your own thread in the sports forum.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

As one who is a huge fan of the sport (I love American football, but Soccer really is my sport of choice), I would love for DirecTV to carry FSC in their regular channel line-up. I agree that this would be no different than say them carrying the NFL network, or the Golf channel. I think that the reason they don't do it is probably because the don't believe there would be a demand for it by folks that don't already have their sports package.

As for why America has never really embraced the sport - that's anyone's guess. I do give credit to those who TRY to follow it (e.g. during the World Cup, they want to see what all the excitement is about). But I do get some pretty whacky excuses as to why they can't get into it - I just laughed when my father-in-law, who was a HS football coach, said that the rules in soccer were just too hard to follow... I spit out my beer "what are you talking about? - one of the beauties of the game is its simplicity - the ONLY rule that's anywhere near complicated is the off-sides rule, and I can explain that one to you in about 45 seconds... and you were a football coach, for crying out loud - want to talk about a sport with lots of complicated rules?"

I've heard that complaint from others, but it's usually along the lines of "I can't follow the sport because I don't understand all the rules..." My response is usually "you like baseball?" When I get back "yeah, I love baseball..." I usually respond "ok, explain the infield fly rule to me..." When I get that blank look that tells me that they CAN'T explain it to me because they don't fully understand it themselves, I respond with "wow, how can you follow baseball unless you know all the rules?"

Look, if someone doesn't like soccer - that's fine. Sports like hockey and basketball aren't my cup of tea. I could explain why, but it's irrelevent - I just don't like those sports. And I certainly won't go off on why the country has never embraced soccer (although, in honesty, we've embraced it alot more than people may realize - I remember going to see a Cosmos - remember the NASL? - game in the early 80's... the stadium was packed - they would regularly sell out games... and that was BEFORE the US national team was even just ok).


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

jpl said:


> As for why America has never really embraced the sport - that's anyone's guess.


I have started a thread to debate all things related to soccer as a spectator sport.

The Link is here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=853662#post853662


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> I have started a thread to debate all things related to soccer as a spectator sport.
> 
> The Link is here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=853662#post853662


Just to clarify, the reason I put that line in my posting was to say "I'm not going to get drawn into a futile debate of why soccer never caught on in the US - I would just be speculating, and we would be going back and forth pointlessly... if someone doesn't like the sport they don't need to justify that dislike to me - personally, not to sound harsh, but I really don't care why someone doesn't like it. They don't, and that's fine. There are sports I don't like - and for some I can't even give you a reason why I don't like them (e.g. Golf)... I guess I find it interesting that folks feel the need to justify their dislike with statements like 'it's too complicated to follow...' - those are just excuses designed to justify, or at least qualify, their dislike of the sport... if you feel the need to express them, the go for it - but you're really not hurting my feelings by telling me that you don't like the sport."

Just to clarify


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jdub,
I guess I didn't realize that FSC wasn't part of the base packages as I've had the sports package for so long. What I don't get is the $15/month charge sor Sentana alone. That makes it just about the most expensive a la carte channel you can get.



jpl said:


> Look, if someone doesn't like soccer - that's fine. Sports like hockey and basketball aren't my cup of tea. I could explain why, but it's irrelevent - I just don't like those sports. And I certainly won't go off on why the country has never embraced soccer (although, in honesty, we've embraced it alot more than people may realize - I remember going to see a Cosmos - remember the NASL? - game in the early 80's... the stadium was packed - they would regularly sell out games... and that was BEFORE the US national team was even just ok).


jpl,
How can you like soccer but not basketball? I'm a recent convert to the soccer cult as a result of my youngest daughter making the premier team at our local club last year, but one of the things that struck me about the sport was how similar it is to basketball. The ball handling, shooting, moving without the ball, defensive positioning, and above all, the passing are all reminiscint of the great American sport.

By the way, I think the country will embrace soccer eventually. It's hard to imagine that the millions of kids who are now growing up with this sport will just abandon it as adults.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

jpl said:


> Just to clarify, the reason I put that line in my posting was to say "I'm not going to get drawn into a futile debate of why soccer never caught on in the US - I would just be speculating, and we would be going back and forth pointlessly... if someone doesn't like the sport they don't need to justify that dislike to me - personally, not to sound harsh, but I really don't care why someone doesn't like it. They don't, and that's fine. There are sports I don't like - and for some I can't even give you a reason why I don't like them (e.g. Golf)... I guess I find it interesting that folks feel the need to justify their dislike with statements like 'it's too complicated to follow...' - those are just excuses designed to justify, or at least qualify, their dislike of the sport... if you feel the need to express them, the go for it - but you're really not hurting my feelings by telling me that you don't like the sport."
> 
> Just to clarify


I think you should argue your point - Because it is a good one... People in this country come out PASSIONATELY AGAINST soccer. Why? (good question for the OTHER thread)


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

jaywdetroit said:


> Okay - I know this thread is a perfect place for you to express just how much you hate soccer, and how wrong the rest of the world is for thinking its the greatest sport known to man. I encourage you to resist the urge to rip the sport apart in this thread. *
> *. Now that that is out of the way...
> 
> This rant is short and to the point. Why is it that U.S. soccer fans can't find a good match without forking over the dough?
> ...


No way, I can not resist the urge.........
You can't ask us to resist and then make the highlited statement!

Youth soccer in the US has been growing greatly over the years!


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

jaywdetroit said:


> Okay - I know this thread is a perfect place for you to express just how much you hate soccer, and how wrong the rest of the world is for thinking its the greatest sport known to man. I encourage you to resist the urge to rip the sport apart in this thread. *We all know we Americans have been slow to embrace that which the rest of world realized 50 years ago.
> *. Now that that is out of the way...
> 
> This rant is short and to the point. Why is it that U.S. soccer fans can't find a good match without forking over the dough?
> ...


No way, I can not resist the urge.........
You can't ask us to resist and then make the highlited statement!
You can't question what's wrong with us when the rest of the world "loves" the game!

Youth soccer in the US has been growing greatly over the years!
Why is it when the kids that played the game grow up they don't watch it??

Because it's just below watching paint dry as a spectator activity!
Why does the rest of the world love it? Because they can go to qames get drunk and start riots!

Soccer has had every chance in this country to catch on, it hasn't why? It's not us, it's the game!


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

KurtV said:


> jdub,
> I guess I didn't realize that FSC wasn't part of the base packages as I've had the sports package for so long. What I don't get is the $15/month charge sor Sentana alone. That makes it just about the most expensive a la carte channel you can get.
> 
> jpl,
> ...


I'll probably be a convert to basketball in the same way you are to soccer when my kids get to that point too  Yeah, I've heard that before too - soccer is just like basketball, and even more just like hockey... so why don't I like either? I should say that I don't care for the NBA - it has to do with the scoring. For all the gripes about the low-scoring nature of soccer, I always have to come back with "how valuable is an individual basket/goal/what have you when you have scores that get into the triple digits?" How can I get excited about seeing a basket scored when I know there are probably another 50 coming before the end of the game? It's precisely the low-scoring nature of soccer that makes it so appealing to me over, say, basketball. With regard to hockey - all I have to say is that it wasn't all that popular of a sport where I grew up. Since moving to the Philly area, though, I was surprised at just how nuts folks go for the Flyers (or is it Fliers? I can never keep that straight - like spelling out the name of Route 76 into Philly - no, I won't even try that one) around here. I've tried watching it on TV, and I just can't follow the action - it's too fast moving, and just not well-suited for TV. I did go to a Flyers game and liked it alot, so maybe there's hope on that front for me. But again, with the monopoly that Comcast has on both sports in this area, it's tough to get a liking for either when I never see either on TV at all... and since I have no intention of ever going back to Comcast that's not likely to change any time soon.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

iceman2a said:


> No way, I can not resist the urge.........
> You can't ask us to resist and then make the highlited statement!
> You can't question what's wrong with us when the rest of the world "loves" the game!
> 
> ...


While I disagree with your assessment of the sport, I have to agree with the fact that you can't NOT respond to the challenge of the original post  I've had people fight with me over less


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

iceman2a said:


> No way, I can not resist the urge.........
> ...
> Because it's just below watching paint dry as a spectator activity!
> 
> ...


If you took the time to understand the game, the 'boring' argument loses merit. It's not the game - it's the education. Go to a bar full of soccer fans watching a game and tell me its not exciting. Listen to their reactions whenever someone touches the ball. Once you understand what is going on on the field, the game takes on a whole new dimension and excitement.

Example - As someone who understands how difficult it is to say, avoid two defenders, then put the ball 'perfectly' to the feet of a team mate I know 'should' be there, but I can't see - I can REALLY appreciate watching professionals do that. And the beauty of the game comes into play when that team mate is actually there, picks up the ball, and does something spectacular with it - goal or not.

And then when a goal is in fact scored, it's just an incredible moment - and I think one of the most exciting moments in any sport. It's definitely on par with a half court basket at the buzzer, or a field goal in a big game in the last 5 seconds, or a walk off home run in a Series.

The only difference is- in soccer- every goal seems to have that kind of magnitude of impact in most games. How often do you get to see a walk off home run in Baseball?


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jpl said:


> I'll probably be a convert to basketball in the same way you are to soccer when my kids get to that point too  Yeah, I've heard that before too - soccer is just like basketball, and even more just like hockey... so why don't I like either? I should say that I don't care for the NBA - it has to do with the scoring. For all the gripes about the low-scoring nature of soccer, I always have to come back with "how valuable is an individual basket/goal/what have you when you have scores that get into the triple digits?" How can I get excited about seeing a basket scored when I know there are probably another 50 coming before the end of the game? It's precisely the low-scoring nature of soccer that makes it so appealing to me over, say, basketball. With regard to hockey - all I have to say is that it wasn't all that popular of a sport where I grew up. Since moving to the Philly area, though, I was surprised at just how nuts folks go for the Flyers (or is it Fliers? I can never keep that straight - like spelling out the name of Route 76 into Philly - no, I won't even try that one) around here. I've tried watching it on TV, and I just can't follow the action - it's too fast moving, and just not well-suited for TV. I did go to a Flyers game and liked it alot, so maybe there's hope on that front for me. But again, with the monopoly that Comcast has on both sports in this area, it's tough to get a liking for either when I never see either on TV at all... and since I have no intention of ever going back to Comcast that's not likely to change any time soon.


The relative ease of scoring is why in basketball, the defensive stops, especially at the end of the game, are more exciting, interesting, and important. Much as jwdet said about soccer, an pretty good understanding of the tactics and techniques is key to really enjoying the game.

I'm like you with hockey; can't watch it on TV. Part of the problem, I think, is that you often can't see enough of the rink at one time to see the plays develop. In person, hockey can be pretty interesting too.


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

jaywdetroit said:


> If you took the time to understand the game, the 'boring' argument loses merit. It's not the game - it's the education. Go to a bar full of soccer fans watching a game and tell me its not exciting. Listen to their reactions whenever someone touches the ball. Once you understand what is going on on the field, the game takes on a whole new dimension and excitement.
> 
> Example - As someone who understands how difficult it is to say, avoid two defenders, then put the ball 'perfectly' to the feet of a team mate I know 'should' be there, but I can't see - I can REALLY appreciate watching professionals do that. And the beauty of the game comes into play when that team mate is actually there, picks up the ball, and does something spectacular with it - goal or not.
> 
> ...


I understand the game!

_let's work the ball up the feild, prod and poke the defense, maybe we can get a "conner kick"_:lol:

I can appreciate the game, I just can't watch more than 10 mins at a time!
Maybe it's ADD, millions of us Americans have it and never been diagnosed?
I can appreciate the people that enjoy watching the game, great for them!
Just don't bash the rest of us that would rather not enjoy the game!

In 90 mins off soccer, what are there, maybe 4 or 5 of those, the rest is like the four conner offense in basketball!
That understanding the game doesn't wash either, those kids growing up playing thru high school and college,they understand it, where are they as fans?


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

iceman2a said:


> .....
> 
> In 90 mins off soccer, what are there, maybe 4 or 5 of those, the rest is like the four conner offense in basketball!
> That understanding the game doesn't wash either, those kids growing up playing thru high school and college,they understand it, where are they as fans?


I played as a kid and still do - I am right here as a fan. As for many of the others - they are out there, but they don't pursue watching, because its not convenient. Its not on - you have to look for it, or PAY FOR IT to watch it.

As for the 4 or 5 moments--- Its the build up to those moments that make it exciting. Like watching a closer walk 2 batters and having a slugger come up in the bottom of the ninth. The same kind of tension builds in soccer throughout the game. Especially when the score is nil-nil and you know the next goal could win the game.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)




----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

iceman2a said:


> ...That understanding the game doesn't wash either, those kids growing up playing thru high school and college,they understand it, where are they as fans?


They're playing themselves and taking their kids to soccer practice and games and more and more of them are going to high school, college, and pro games every year. I get soccer on 3 channels regularly through DirecTV (don't pay the $15/month for Setana) so someone must be watching this stuff (I know, I know, someone's watching home shopping too).

Hey, people probably said the same things about football and basketball back when baseball was king in the '40s, '50s, and '60s. Soccer will be a big deal in this country eventually.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Actually, what infuriates me isn't the guy on the street who just doesn't want to understand the game - like I said, you don't like the game, that's fine. What bugs me are the commentators that they have who don't understand the game. While they get their fair share of good commentators during things like World Cup coverage (Tommy Smyth is, as he would say about a good play on the field, "just brilliant!", and they actually had Bruce Arena during the last US/Mexico match I saw just a couple weeks ago - although I thought he got too technical), many of the analysis you see on ESPN following a game is just insipid. Watching, I forget what the show was, but it was a general sports round-up, and the issue of popularity of soccer was debated. One comment that nearly made me fall off my elliptical machine (I was at the gym at the time) was that soccer would be better if there were more "direct shots on goal." To demonstrate his point, and his ignorance, the guy said something like "look at how many shots go wide, or over the top of the goal, because they're not shooting accurately (i.e. for the middle of the goal)... and because of THAT the scores for the games are too low"

I was so astounded by the lack of understanding of basic tactics in sports in general, that I almost thought the guy had to be an anti-sports plant working at ESPN. The reason that they shoot for the edge, btw, for those not familiar, is because there's a goalie sitting in the middle of the net! Your chances of scoring are increased by going for the edge, or corners -- where the goalie would have a hard time stopping the ball from going in.

I have to agree with part of the comment, though, that a lack of understanding of the skill involved is what keeps some from enjoying the game. But it's a circle - it's a lack of enjoyment of the game that keeps someone from studying it enough to understand how good some of these players are. I think that's true of just about anything. If you don't appreciate it, you won't watch it. And if you don't watch it, you'll never develop the ability to appreciate it.

As for basketball, that's fine - I agree that there's strategy at play. I don't dispute that. What bothers me (bores me) is the fact that you get 50 - 60 baskets in a game. Don't like the score? Just wait a second and it'll change!


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

jaywdetroit said:


> *I played as a kid and still do - I am right here as a fan. As for many of the others - they are out there,* but they don't pursue watching, because its not convenient. Its not on - you have to look for it, or PAY FOR IT to watch it.
> 
> As for the 4 or 5 moments--- Its the build up to those moments that make it exciting. Like watching a closer walk 2 batters and having a slugger come up in the bottom of the ninth. The same kind of tension builds in soccer throughout the game. Especially when the score is nil-nil and you know the next goal could win the game.


Evidently not enough! If there was, there would be sponsors lining up to advertise, so there would be more on "free tv"!

Agian, you love it, that's fine!

But until it becomes a "semi-major" sport in this country, you'll probably still have to pay!! Don't blame the rest of us for that!!


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

iceman2a said:


> Evidently not enough! If there was, there would be sponsors lining up to advertise, so there would be more on "free tv"!
> 
> Agian, you love it, that's fine!
> 
> But until it becomes a "semi-major" sport in this country, you'll probably still have to pay!! Don't blame the rest of us for that!!


Hey, if curling can be an Olympic sport, then ANY game can take off in the US


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

jpl said:


> As for basketball, that's fine - I agree that there's strategy at play. I don't dispute that. What bothers me (bores me) is the fact that you get 50 - 60 baskets in a game. Don't like the score? Just wait a second and it'll change!


I'm not a basketball fan either - I do really appreciate the skill the players have - and it is something to watch a player drive for the net and dunk the ball from the top of the key - but the game itself is boring for me until the last two minutes of a close game. I did play as a kid and do understand the game somewhat - I just never really got into watching it much.

And to throw fuel on the fire (why not) - at the last Pistons game I went too in the mid 90s, the stands were full of business folk in suits making deals with their clients.

There were a handful of African Americans sitting behind us REALLY enjoying the game. They seemed to be the only ones actually WATCHING the game. Yeah - well they got kicked out for being too rowdy.

That was the last game I went too.


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

Let me make one point about soccer and admit something about it that I don't understand! OFFSIDES!! At somepoint on the field it should fall on the defender to defend and not let a player get behind him!

If this exposes my ignorance of the game so be it!!


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

iceman2a said:


> Let me make one point about soccer and admit something about it that I don't understand! OFFSIDES!! At somepoint on the field it should fall on the defender to defend and not let a player get behind him!
> 
> If this exposes my ignorance of the game so be it!!


Fair question. First, it depends on a number of factors. One - you have a limited number of defenders (depending on the formation you play), and they can throw alot of other players at you (forwards and midfielders). To defend against all of them is just impossible. And it can hurt you - how many of those players are not part of the play? Spend your energy focusing on that one guy in the back, and you may miss the play entirely, and you get beaten. Second, to do that would require that you keep your defenders way back, giving your opponent more time in your side of the field, and giving them way too much time in front of your goal. Finally, you want to keep the ball out of your end of the field as much as you can - many good defenses know how to spring an off-sides trap. The number of off-sides, while portrayed frequently (here's that insipid reporting again) as a deficiency on the attacker (there goes that forward again - another off-sides call), many times lots of off-sides calls speak to the skill of the defense. The communication and focus it takes to spring an off-sides trap is difficult, and to pull it off shows great skill. Granted, sometimes the off-sides is due to an attacker who's over-anxious, but many times it's the result of a well-executed defensive play.

Get the off-sides called, and guess what? You now have the ball - actually your goalie gets to kick it up field. It's in the defending team's interest to spring an off-sides if they can.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

I used to think they should get rid of the offside rule to increase the scoring and make the game more exciting, but not anymore. As jpl said, it really is an interesting part of the game and, besides that, it probably actually increases scoring opportunities. 

If the rule wasn't there, teams would probably keep their defenders further back to the point that at least a couple of them would be completely out of the offensive game and defenders are a big part of a well-run offensive attack as the game is now. What goals did result from eliminating the offside rule would be of the cherry-picking, breakaway type; not the great scheme, great pass type that I really appreciate.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

KurtV said:


> I used to think they should get rid of the offside rule to increase the scoring and make the game more exciting, but not anymore. As jpl said, it really is an interesting part of the game and, besides that, it probably actually increases scoring opportunities.
> 
> If the rule wasn't there, teams would probably keep their defenders further back to the point that at least a couple of them would be completely out of the offensive game and defenders are a big part of a well-run offensive attack as the game is now. What goals did result from eliminating the offside rule would be of the cherry-picking, breakaway type; not the great scheme, great pass type that I really appreciate.


Couldn't agree more. And I couldn't have said it any better.


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

not sure if anyone realizes this, but the Euro 2008 tournament is going to be on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 this time around. that has to show some kind of improvement as far as popularity goes.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Tony1097 said:


> not sure if anyone realizes this, but the Euro 2008 tournament is going to be on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 this time around. that has to show some kind of improvement as far as popularity goes.


Did not realize that- That is good news. As is the news that the U.S. might host the 2018 World Cup.


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

You think you got it bad? In my house, we only watch hockey and lacrosse. I get to be a 4th and 5th class citizen at the same time!


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jaywdetroit said:


> Well I was not aware that the English folk get charged to watch the English game. That said - unfortunate as it is for them, I don't care.


In other words, you expect a charity to serve your self-serving interest. You think it will somehow work differently, magically in a vacuum for US market, irrespective of media rights in other parts of the world, which are all inter-connected.

Notice how you conveniently ignored the "basic laws of economics governed by supply and demand" part.



> There is an expectation in the U.S. that you can get a healthy does of your pro sports without paying extra.


There is no expectation of charity.



> I am talking about the Fox Soccer Channel which shows a little of every popular league.


In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. FSC is a crap channel which shows left overs of Premiership after best bulk has been sold off to Setanta. And almost worthless leftovers of Serie A, and coming spring portions of MLS.

That constitutes "little of every popular league", eh? Does FSC show La Liga or Bundesliga? Willing to take a bet on the popularity of those leagues? As a hint, average attendance figures for Bundesliga routinely blow out English Premiership. Does it show any worthwhile Champions League (don't mention worthless delayed telecast involving AC Milan, as it is after 2 days)? Did it show World Cup? Will it show Euro 2008, Copa America, Copa Libertadores (except maybe the final)?

I won't even bother mentioning lower rung stuff such as Dutch, French, Scottish, Portuguese leagues.

Or here is a killer, talking about "popular leagues". Do you know which league is most popular on US soil from TV ratings? It's not English Premiership, it's not MLS. In fact, it's not even a single European league. It's the Mexican Apertura. Does FSC go anywhere near it?

Look, if you really cared about little bit of popular leagues, you would actually have GolTV and Setanta, both top-notch channels. Not while absurdly, almost demanding charity for a crap channel like FSC which is nothing but leftover scraps interrupted by umpteen informacials and reruns of garbage like Dream Team.



> So no, my post is not over the top.


So yes, it most certainly is.


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

oh. but don't forget. FSC has the suspenseful, dramatic, ever popular "Dream Team!" soap opera!!


sarcasm aside.. GolTV is a better channel than FSC is. and of course Setanta is great. Setanta is the Modern day Fox Sports World!


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Tony1097 said:


> oh. but don't forget. FSC has the suspenseful, dramatic, ever popular "Dream Team!" soap opera!!


No, didn't forget it. It's mentioned there somewhere in my long reply.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

islesfan said:


> You think you got it bad? In my house, we only watch hockey and lacrosse. I get to be a 4th and 5th class citizen at the same time!


You wouldn't be if you lived in Detroit.

Hockey is probably the #1 sport now days. In fact in my neighborhood, there are 4 or 5 guys that play in adult leagues.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Okay - personal attacks aside - let me clarify for you, I will put it in simple terms since you seem to think me a simple mind.

I said a "LITTLE". The scraps, as you call them, fit into that category. 

If you agree with your argument, then you should agree FSC should be free, since it apparently isn't showing anything worth paying for in the first place.

I personally, don't care about the Mexican League, and where I live in Michigan, ITS NOT POPULAR AT ALL. I play in an adult league with about 100 players and we have a couple of (very good) Mexican players, and a TON of Europeans, MOSTLY ENGLISH. So pardon me for wanting something that fits my demographic. Maybe in SoCAL its popular, not here.

I want to see more than 1 MLS game per week and I want to keep up with what is going on in Europe. FSC is sufficient to do that. I had Setanta and GOLTV and I know all about them. We ought to be able to see more MLS games in this country 
FOR FREE, as well as the Premiership. The NFL and MLB figured out long ago how to do it, are you telling me its beyond soccer to do the same? Please.

Before you decided to attack me, did you consider that maybe I thought those stations deserved and extra charge on my Bill?

Now please - if you are going to respond with an attack - don't bother. Your opinions are welcome, your attacks are not.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jaywdetroit said:


> If you agree with your argument, then you should agree FSC should be free, since it apparently isn't showing anything worth paying for in the first place.


In other words, you have an understanding of financial statement of Fox Sports International, which is the parent company of FSC, and you can unilaterally declare it should be in lowest tier. Just because you want it.

Oh, and how DirecTV, DISH, Comcast, Time Warner will all, oh so lovingly and eagerly wait to embrace it in the lowest tier there.

Do you have any idea how ludicrous your statements are? Do you know how Fox Sports International treats American FSC? As far as their financial bottom line is concerned, they care more about their informacials than striving to bring weekend FA Cup LIVE. That's what pays their bills. Getting rights money for premium matches from Setanta is what pays their bills. Not those once in a while Man Utd. vs. Arsenal matchups, and definitely not MLS. And God forbid, definitely not Catania vs. Torino from Serie A.

FSC is a convenient tax write off in USA for Fox Sports International, that's all!!

And the "lowest tier" stuff is even more ludicrous hyperbole than demands about FSC. It shows you have absolutely no idea how business decisions are made about these tiers. Do you think it's a simple matter to go into lowest tier? Do you have any idea how much crap Disney family pulls to keep their ESPN/ESPN2 in the lowest tier? They almost pay arm and leg, and hold most of carriers ransom with too many package demands.

Is Fox Sports International going to make such demands for their tax write off channel? The parent Fox would probably want it to, but do they have a chance in hell? DirecTV, DISH, major cable carriers would tell them to go to hell.



> I personally, don't care about the Mexican League, and where I live in Michigan, ITS NOT POPULAR AT ALL.


Once again, quit with this "I personally" part. It's not about what you personally care about, or what I personally care about. To say otherwise is selfishness, and that's not a personal attack.

It's about what sells advertising, has most ratings. That's why I've been repeating the "supply and demand, economics" part.

Take some time to do research on historical business negotiations involved in getting channels in low tiers. Most notably investigate what Disney does for their ESPN. Don't start whines with no basis in vacuum and nothing to back them up, and are all subjective, no trace of objectivity.

And last but not the least, stop mentioning NFL or MLB when talking about English Premiership demands.

Even if you put the topmost Premiership match (such as Man Utd vs. Chelsea this year) hypotetically in the lowest tier, it won't get more rating numbers than the most worthless NFL matchup like Arizona Cardinals vs. Houstan Texans. And that statement has got nothing to do with my personal preferences. It's just an objective fact.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Chandu said:


> In other words, you expect a charity to serve your self-serving interest. You think it will somehow work differently, magically in a vacuum for US market, irrespective of media rights in other parts of the world, which are all inter-connected.
> 
> Notice how you conveniently ignored the "basic laws of economics governed by supply and demand" part.
> 
> ...


The thing is - no one is talking about getting charity here. The problem with the English Premier League has nothing to do with the sport at all - it has to do with government regulation -- everyone gets a TV tax, just for owning one, in England. That's what I think this is referring to - you're required to pay to watch soccer there... but you're required to pay for TV period - and we're not talking for services like DirecTV - but you pay for just owning a TV. To say that soccer should be treated like all other professional sports in the US is not to ask for charity - whatever they decide to do in England is totally irrelevent to how the US handles these types of broadcasts.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Okay - Fine - I don't know what you do, and why you happen to know sooooo much about the financing of Fox Soccer Channel. Bully for you. That doesn't change my position. 

First off, I can DEMAND anything I like, as long as I have reasonable expectation of results. Do you seriously think, that I think at thread on DBSTalk.com is going to make D* see the light and throw FSC into their line-up? I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of people. 

Explain to me again why you think we should pay extra for a channel that you so lovingly describe as a tax write off.

If soccer games are ever going to get the kind of ratings that a Cardinals vs. Lions game does, then they are going to have to start by showing more games on Television for free. 

I'm not an econ major, but I'm betting if you can get a station on the air like BabyFirst, Fox can afford to pull off showing "drivel" all day long for free. 

Thanks for your opinion, enjoy your season.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jpl said:


> The problem with the English Premier League has nothing to do with the sport at all - it has to do with government regulation -- everyone gets a TV tax, just for owning one, in England. That's what I think this is referring to


Say what? Do you think you can watch English Premiership in England over the air like on ITV, BBC? There is one single "Match of the Day" on Sundays on BBC. Other than that, you're required to shell out half your paycheck for that Sky subscription, or go and get pissed in pubs to watch it without comforts of your home.

It's got nothing to with TV tax. It's got everything to do with forever sky-rocketing media rights.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Also, no one is saying that we should get the games for free totally - only that DirecTV should consider treating soccer like it does the NFL and Golf, and offer a basic channel for the sport in its basic tier. If it's FSC, then fine. If it's another channel (Gol, e.g.) that's fine too. If I'm a soccer fanatic, and willing to pay more for it, then I have options to get those additional channels (ditto for the NFL - if I so desired - and my wife would let me  - I could go for NFL ST to get all the football I could stand). But offering a basic soccer channel in their basic tier is no different than what they do with other sports - and as an analogy, I could make the same argument that the NFL network is crap too because it doesn't show every game across the country. No, it's not ideal for football fans, but it's an offering that lets them have more access to a particular sport.

Again, no one is saying that they should carry more of these games over the air, for no fee. But that DirecTV should carry a basic soccer channel on their base tier.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jaywdetroit said:


> Explain to me again why you think we should pay extra for a channel that you so lovingly describe as a tax write off.


It doesn't matter what I think about it.

That's what DirecTV, DISH, Comcast, Time Warner cable, and most importantly executives of Fox Sports International think.



> I'm not an econ major, but I'm betting if you can get a station on the air like BabyFirst, Fox can afford to pull off showing "drivel" all day long for free.


I know nothing about the financial numbers involved behind BabyFirst. Who is the parent company of that channel, and how much are they paying DirecTV? What does their advertising revenue look like? How does that compare with FSC?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Say what? Do you think you can watch English Premiership in England over the air like on ITV, BBC? There is one single "Match of the Day" on Sundays on BBC. Other than that, you're required to shell out half your paycheck for that Sky subscription, or go and get pissed in pubs to watch it without comforts of your home.
> 
> It's got nothing to with TV tax. It's got everything to do with forever sky-rocketing media rights.


I stand corrected then. Either way, why is that relevent to how sports are treated here in the US? Because you have to pay for a sport in England, does that mean you should have to pay for the sport here? Especially when you compare it to other sports in the US. Just cause the English system sucks with this doesn't mean that we should mimic it. I just think that soccer should be treated more on an equal footing with other sports. No, I know it doesn't have the popularity of baseball or football, but there is no regular schedule for any games in the US. It's the only major sport that I know of which requires you to pay a subscription to get a decent number of games. There are specific markets where this also applies to other sports (I already mentioned basketball and hockey here in Philly since Comcast owns the rights to both the Flyers and Sixers, but that's the exception).

Besides, why is this relevent at all to whether or not DirecTV should offer a soccer channel on their basic tier? The whole point of the thread, from what I could tell, is that they do that for other sports, so why not soccer? Is it a preference of some customers? Well, yeah. But that's no different than if I were to tell DirecTV "I want to put in a vote for you to carry CSPAN-3" - it's based on my preference as a customer. Not saying that they can, or should, cover every such request, but why is it so bad to ask for something like that? No one is asking for charity - just that DirecTV move a channel to their basic tier. They've done it before, why not for soccer?


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Guys now play for the Sting? WOW! I thought he played with the Police.

All kidding aside, since soccer isn't that popular a spectator sport in America, Fox probably has to get its money somehow and may be charging a subscriber fee. That could be why it's not on. I'm not sure that's the case, but it's possible.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jpl said:


> Again, no one is saying that they should carry more of these games over the air, for no fee. But that DirecTV should carry a basic soccer channel on their base tier.


But Rugby Union fans think DirecTV should carry a basic rugby channel like Setanta on their base tier.

(Repeat above for Rugby League and Australian Football fans.)

And cricket fans think DirecTV should carry a basic cricket channel like Cricket Plus in their base tier.

And Formula-1 fans think DirecTV should carry a basic F1 channel like Speed Channel in their base tier.

But what about the plight of lacrosse and sumo fans?


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jpl said:


> No one is asking for charity - just that DirecTV move a channel to their basic tier.


The irony of that statement sure made my day. I know it wasn't intentional on your part, but thanks for the laugh!


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Okay - now you are grabbing at straws - you are comparing soccer to lacrosse?

As THE soccer fan on DBSTalk, you should be ashamed of yourself. 

(Soccer IS the most popular sport in the world.) 

And (in this country) I bet there are enough people that simply play the sport let alone watch it to support a channel like FSC.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Chandu said:


> But Rugby Union fans think DirecTV should carry a basic rugby channel like Setanta on their base tier.
> 
> (Repeat above for Rugby League and Australian Football fans.)
> 
> ...


Fine. If they want to make the request to DirecTV, who am I to stop them? DirecTV decides (as they should) on their own which of these requests they should follow-through on and which they shouldn't. I have no problem if a rugby fan decides that they would like DirecTV to carry a channel dedicated to that sport, and they make the request. Ditto all the other sports you mentioned. Not sure why making a request like that is such a bad thing. I'm not demanding anything - just making a request as a customer. No different than if I were to request my local supermarket carry a particular brand of breakfast cereal. They can tell me "sorry, there's just no market for that, so we're not going to carry it." That's their perogative.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Chandu said:


> The irony of that statement sure made my day. I know it wasn't intentional on your part, but thanks for the laugh!


Sorry - but there's no irony there. I'm paying for my DirecTV service. If they move a channel like FSC to the total choice plus (or whatever they're calling it these days) package, guess what? I'll STILL be paying for my DirecTV service! No one is asking for a hand-out. No one is saying "they should give this to me even if I don't pay..." They add channels ALL the time to their packages (heck, in the last couple months they added, what 4 channels - Style, Chiller, MOR, B&F) - is it asking for charity to say "hey DirecTV I really think you should carry this on your basic tier."? Sorry, but I don't think so.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jpl said:


> Fine. If they want to make the request to DirecTV, who am I to stop them? DirecTV decides (as they should) on their own which of these requests they should follow-through on and which they shouldn't. I have no problem if a rugby fan decides that they would like DirecTV to carry a channel dedicated to that sport, and they make the request. Ditto all the other sports you mentioned. Not sure why making a request like that is such a bad thing. I'm not demanding anything - just making a request as a customer. No different than if I were to request my local supermarket carry a particular brand of breakfast cereal. They can tell me "sorry, there's just no market for that, so we're not going to carry it." That's their perogative.


Oh wait! So, the point of this thread is to make whatever requests you feel like making?

In that case, I would like a pony please! With a seat studded by the Kohinoor diamond. And since I don't have it, it is 2nd class treatment.

[Serious tone]Sure, customers can make whatever requests they want to make. If you go back to my 1st post in this thread, words in thread title like "2nd class treatment" are reactionary and over the top. That whiny tone is what I have problem with.[/Serious tone]


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jaywdetroit said:


> Okay - now you are grabbing at straws - you are comparing soccer to lacrosse?
> 
> As THE soccer fan on DBSTalk, you should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> ...


What does that have to do with what I was talking about?

This is what I was talking about:

http://m-w.com/dictionary/objectivity

http://m-w.com/dictionary/subjectivity

http://m-w.com/dictionary/second-class


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Oh wait! So, the point of this thread is to make whatever requests you feel like making?
> 
> In that case, I would like a pony please! With a seat studded by the Kohinoor diamond. And since I don't have it, it is 2nd class treatment.
> 
> [Serious tone]Sure, customers can make whatever requests they want to make. If you go back to my 1st post in this thread, words in thread title like "2nd class treatment" are reactionary and over the top. That whiny tone is what I have problem with.[/Serious tone]


If you have a problem with it - don't read the thread - don't come back. We won't miss you.

It's too bad - as someone with as much knowledge as you purport to have and who is such a big soccer fan, had you come into this thread offering your knowledge instead of your insults - we might have had a better discussion.

Who is doing the whining around here anyway?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Oh wait! So, the point of this thread is to make whatever requests you feel like making?
> 
> In that case, I would like a pony please! With a seat studded by the Kohinoor diamond. And since I don't have it, it is 2nd class treatment.
> 
> [Serious tone]Sure, customers can make whatever requests they want to make. If you go back to my 1st post in this thread, words in thread title like "2nd class treatment" are reactionary and over the top. That whiny tone is what I have problem with.[/Serious tone]


Ok... not sure where I said that point of THIS thread is to make any request that you want... It's about adding a soccer channel to their basic tier. While I don't agree with the tone (about 2nd class treatment), that wasn't the basis of some of your objections. When you said, in essense, that it's unreasonable to make a request of DirecTV (which is basically what you said), how is that being critical of the tone of the thread? You may have started out criticizing that tone, but you went then you went off on some postings because you thought it was unreasonable to make a request.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

jpl said:


> Ok... not sure where I said that point of THIS thread is to make any request that you want... It's about adding a soccer channel to their basic tier. While I don't agree with the tone (about 2nd class treatment), that wasn't the basis of some of your objections. When you said, in essense, that it's unreasonable to make a request of DirecTV (which is basically what you said), how is that being critical of the tone of the thread? You may have started out criticizing that tone, but you went then you went off on some postings because you thought it was unreasonable to make a request.


Its clear to me - he would rather argue with anything than argue a point. I'm putting him on ignore. Please refrain from quoting him if you can.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

BTW, I went back and read your original posting, Chandu, and what I took from it is basically: You have no right to complain about the offerings of soccer in this country, because in England it's really bad. Not sure where that fits in with the discussion at hand. Again, as I took it, the thread asked the simple question - if you're a soccer fan would you like to see DirecTV add FSC to a basic tier or not? Don't know why the comparison to soccer in other countries is even relevent to this discussion. I personally could care less how these things are arranged in other countries - how the populace there deals with them is their concern, not mine. Again, we're simply talking about making a simple request to a private company to which we're all customers. I see nothing wrong with that. And I still have trouble seeing why, what happens in England, has any bearing, whatsoever, on this.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> Its clear to me - he would rather argue with anything than argue a point. I'm putting him on ignore. Please refrain from quoting him if you can.


I agree - I just get a sense that he wants to instigate because he has some kind of axe to grind. I'm going to stop responding as well.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jpl said:


> While I don't agree with the tone (about 2nd class treatment), that wasn't the basis of some of your objections.


That's exactly the basis of all my objections.

Go back to this first post I made in this thread:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=853608



> When you said, in essense, that it's unreasonable to make a request of DirecTV (which is basically what you said), how is that being critical of the tone of the thread? You may have started out criticizing that tone, but you went then you went off on some postings because you thought it was unreasonable to make a request.


I said it was unreasonable to make such requests, while shouting off reactionary words like "2nd class treatment".

If a customer starts making requests with such a whiny tone, they better have enough material to back up the reason for it. And it has been shown with some objective facts that there is no basis for such reactionary tone.

If the thread had been titled somewhat more objectively, I wouldn't have come in so criticizing. I would have come in "offering knowledge" as he said in an earlier post.

If a poster in a public forum makes reactionary statements shouting things like "2nd class treatment", has been shown to not have any basis for being so reactionary and doesn't have the thick skin for taking criticism after making such reactionary statements, what does that tell you? It's not just a one-way street.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jpl said:


> Again, as I took it, the thread asked the simple question


Do simple questions start with accusatory tones such as "2nd class treatment"? Especially with not a whole lot to back it up?



> Again, we're simply talking about making a simple request to a private company to which we're all customers.


Repeat: Do simple requests start with accusatory tones such as "2nd class treatment"? Especially with not a whole lot to back it up?



> And I still have trouble seeing why, what happens in England, has any bearing, whatsoever, on this.


If you have trouble seeing that, it exposes more your lack of understanding the problem space as a whole than anything else. As a general suggestion, it would help to research a topic bit more, before deciding to take emotional, hard stance on it.

OK, let's go in steps here:

First, leagues like English Premiership sell their rights collectively. Of course they are sold at different rates in different parts of the world.

Because they are able to be push-overs in places like England, China, Thailand, Malaysia, the Premiership is an arrogant entity to deal with.

At the bargaining table, Fox Sports International is in a weaker position to bargain than Premiership. FSI needs to demonstrate concrete viewership rating numbers, justify their financial footings, just to be able to bid for Premiership. Fact of the matter, as has been mentioned in earlier posts is FSI is not in a position to make up financial numbers without relying on getting rights money back from Setanta, without padding too many scraps with informacials. The American marketplace is what it is. FSI is not in a financial condition to change it with magic wand.

Furthermore, FSI doesn't even care about FSC numbers as much as their own financial bottomline. For them, FSC is purely a tax write off vehicle. FSI doesn't have the kind of parent backing from Fox empire, as Disney may be offering to some of its children. For FSI, those PPV revenues, money back from Setanta, informacial revenue, that is what matters to them.

To go from top tier to bottom tier is not for the faint of heart. The financial number crunching and amount of negotiations involved are bloody. For something FSI thinks as a tax write off, and for something they can't bully Premeirship around, it is juvenile to suggest that FSI would be in negotiating position to ask for lower tier. It would reflect back on what FSI would need to negotiate with Premiership. I mean the numbers have to add up somewhere. Money doesn't just fall from the sky. Rupert Murdoch isn't just sitting around allowing FSI to be run as a benevolent charity.

Even though both FSI and DirecTV are children of same News Corp, Murdoch and company cannot let conflicts of interest come in. Each child company must be run on its own accord with tight financial constraints.

If FSI took the financial deficit back to Premiership during negotiations, Premiership could tell FSI to go to hell, citing the rights structure they have with Sky Sports in England and ESPN Star Asia in Malaysia/Thailand. And Premiership would go to the next eager media owner waiting in line. Perhaps they could deal directly with Setanta, why go through the middle man of FSI? Or the worst case scenario for FSI: Premiership could deal with Disney. Do you think FSI would want that to happen?


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

I am glad I can't see his posts -


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I know I said I wouldn't respond, but I feel I must - but this will be my last on this. First, I didn't realize that the tone determined the legitimacy of a request. So, when my kids whine that they're hungry I shouldn't feed them because they're being whiny? Just a question. Second, your sarcasm in the one response was unwarranted. You asked a question about fans of other sports making requests to DirecTV. I gave an honest answer saying "I have no issue with that..." and you lay that sarcastic response on me? What exactly was the purpose of your original question if not a legitimate response? I generally don't go for the whole entrapment thing, but to each his own.

Finally, as for the "number crunching" I guess that should be up to, oh I don't know, maybe DirecTV to decide. After all they ARE the service provider. They shouldn't consider the request because YOU believe that the numbers may not add up? Sorry, but that's not how this works. We, as customers, make our preferences known - and the company decides whether it has merit or not. What a concept!

And PLEASE explain to me why the pricing structure for soccer in England or China has ANYTHING to do with DirecTV offering a channel to its US customers. I guess I'm just too stupid to get it...

Finally finally, DirecTV isn't a child company of News Corp. It's a seperate corporate entity... and Murdoch is no longer the majority shareholder - Liberty is.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jpl said:


> So, when my kids whine that they're hungry I shouldn't feed them because they're being whiny?


Being whiny when hungry and feeding is like being able to get FSC on a lower tier? When it is already available for a reasonable fee in Sports Pack?

Is there a reasonable solution for your kids to eat when they're hungry and you refuse to feed them? No.

Is there an outlet of reasonable Sports Pack fee available if FSC isn't in lower tier? Yes.

No, it's more like "When my kids whine that they want to play computer games for extra half an hour, without doing homework. I offer them a reasonable alternative of playing the same game next day, in their alloted computer game playing time."



> Second, your sarcasm in the one response was unwarranted. You asked a question about fans of other sports making requests to DirecTV. I gave an honest answer saying "I have no issue with that..." and you lay that sarcastic response on me?


The sarcastic response was not laid personally on you. It was laid on the general whiny tone with which this thread started, somehow with a feeling of entitlement, like the world owes us something because we're customers.



> And PLEASE explain to me why the pricing structure for soccer in England or China has ANYTHING to do with DirecTV offering a channel to its US customers. I guess I'm just too stupid to get it...


Huh?

Can DirecTV unilaterally decide it wants to offer a channel in lower tier, maybe as a special treatment to that channel? It would make sense only if DirecTV exclusively owned that channel.

The process involves 2 parties to negotiate - DirecTV and FSI. (Actually, it indirectly involved 3 parties, DirecTV, FSI and Premiership. The dependence on that 3rd party is due to FSI's hopeless dependence on Premeirship for their content. Serie A, MLS and everything else is basically noise on their financial spectrum.)

FSI is not in a strong negotiating position with DirecTV, due to lack of its negotiating leverage with Premiership itself, because of what's happening in England, Thailand, Malaysia, China, the biggest 4 markets for Premiership.

Good point on that DirecTV - Liberty ownership. The News Corp link was never a point of argument for the original complaint anyway, and if hypothetically it had been, was a moot point.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Wow you missed my point on the whole whiny thing. The whining does not figure into the legitimacy of a request. THAT was my point. Just because someone is whiny doesn't mean that their request has no merit. That's why I used the example of feeding my kids. Feeding my kids when they're hungry is a reasonable response to a request - regardless of whether they're whiny or not. Whether or not the original post was whiny (and I don't think it was) in NO WAY affects the legitamacy of the request. If the request is legit then it's legit. Doesn't matter HOW it's conveyed. Whiny, unwhiny, in Klingon. Doesn't matter - it has merit on its own or it doesn't. THAT'S why I used the example that I did.

As for the sarcasm not being directed at me? Are you kidding? Why did you reference my post? You answered my posting directly. How else should I take that?


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jpl said:


> As for the sarcasm not being directed at me? Are you kidding? Why did you reference my post? You answered my posting directly. How else should I take that?


How else would I have proper thread propagation, if I didn't quote your post directly? What if a third poster posted something else in between, and I posted as a propagation response to what you had posted? Without quoting, my post would look out of context. Notice in some other posts of mine, like this:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=854358&postcount=75

even though I directly quote your post, I'm referring back to whiny tone of original post. The sarcasm is not directed at you. So chill.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

chandu,
The OP's initial post seemed pretty good natured and the rant/whiny part of it was clearly tongue-in-cheek. You took this negative when in your first post you called him reactionary and over-the-top. If someone needs to chill, you'll probably find him/her in the mirror.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

KurtV said:


> chandu,
> The OP's initial post seemed pretty good natured and the rant/whiny part of it was clearly tongue-in-cheek.


Clearly?

What's "clearly" to you is "not clearly" to someone else. I don't see anything tongue-in-cheek when I see a thread title starting with RANT and containing "2nd class treatment".

Anyway, I'm signing off from this thread since the most interesting part is over - discussion of financial negotiations involved in moving from 1 tier to another.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Clearly?
> 
> What's "clearly" to you is "not clearly" to someone else. I don't see anything tongue-in-cheek when I see a thread title starting with RANT and containing "2nd class treatment".
> 
> Anyway, I'm signing off from this thread since the most interesting part is over - discussion of financial negotiations involved in moving from 1 tier to another.


The "interesting" part looked much more like a monologue than a discussion.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

KurtV said:


> chandu,
> The OP's initial post seemed pretty good natured and the rant/whiny part of it was clearly tongue-in-cheek.


Funny, that's EXACTLY how I took it too. If I thought it was over the top and whiny I would have, um, skipped over the thread... and I would have held off on posting to it.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

It appears this thread can now go back to discussing whether or not we, D* subs, would like to see D* add FSC to a lower tier channel line-up.

How do you feel about D*'s soccer offerings? 

You know to get all the soccer channels, you would have to pay for FSC AND Setanta.

Why doesn't D* offer a Soccer package for 10 bucks or something? Get all 3 channels, but not the rest of the sports package?


----------



## oenophile (Dec 1, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> It appears this thread can now go back to discussing whether or not we, D* subs, would like to see D* add FSC to a lower tier channel line-up.
> 
> How do you feel about D*'s soccer offerings?
> 
> ...


I would love to watch calcio in HDTV. Anyone know whether an HD Soccer channel is in the works?

Also, at a quick glance, I didn't see any mention of Sentanta or GOAL TV. Both are really good. Frankly, although it isn't cheap, I think D* has the best Soccer offerings in the US, doesn't it?

Just wish there was HD.


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> It appears this thread can now go back to discussing whether or not we, D* subs, would like to see D* add FSC to a lower tier channel line-up.
> 
> How do you feel about D*'s soccer offerings?
> 
> ...


I thought about that concept.. but it sure wont be $10 if they do something like that when Setanta is $15 alone.

What could happen down the road is Setanta having every major Euro League across the board, and running a multi channel service of their own. (They do this in other countries, and they already have a 2nd channel up they use some Saturdays on channel 670.) Even if Setanta raises their $15 to say.. $20, you will still be saving money because you wont have a need for the sports pack.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

jpl said:


> If I thought it was over the top and whiny I would have, um, skipped over the thread... and I would have held off on posting to it.


Or, ahem I would've pointed out the whinyness, it being a public forum and all, so the American soccer fan "persecuted whiny victim" stereotype doesn't spread.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Tony1097 said:


> ...it sure wont be $10 if they do something like that when Setanta is $15 alone.


Duh!!!!

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.  I mean I thought the basic math I learned told me 15 > 10, but for a second I started to have doubts if I got it wrong. :grin:


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

oenophile said:


> Anyone know whether an HD Soccer channel is in the works?


What do you mean "in the works"? HD telecasts have already been there for quite a while. Check this thread:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=79153



> Just wish there was HD.


Yeah, it's already there.


----------



## UKintheUS (Dec 23, 2005)

Now for those of you that dont know, Football/Soccer in Britain aint that cheap to watch either. The dominant TV service there is the BSkyB Digital Satellite Service, a Newscorp owned Service.

*Sky Sports Pack, costs £15 or $30 a month.
What you get:*
*Sky Sports 1* - Live Premier League and other Leagues
*Sky Sports 2* - Live Premier League and England Internationals
*Sky Sports 3* - Other Leagues
*Sky Sports Xtra* - Live Premier League Interactive (IE you choose your camera)
*Sky Sports News
British Eurosport
Eurosport 2 UK 
Motors TV 
AttheRaces 
Extreme Sports 
Golf Channel
TWC Fight!
ESPN Classic 
Real Madrid TV*

*The Setanta Sports Pack costs £15 or $30 a month*
*Setanta Sports 1* - Live English and Scottish Premier Leagues and others
*Setanta Sports 2* - Live English and Scottish Premier Leagues and others
*NASN* (North American Sports Network, Owned by ESPN)
*Setanta Golf 
Racing UK
Racing World 
Setanta Ireland 
Celtic TV
Rangers TV *

Now the Premiership Games are sold off in Packs. So Sky Bought the bulk of the games, Setanta got 64 of the games and Prem Plus which is also Sky got Exclusive PPV Games.

*Premium Sports Channels*
*MUTV* - £35 or $62 a month
*Chelsea TV* - £35 or $62 a month 
*Prem Plus* - £12 or $24 a game
*Prem Plus HD* - as above
*Setanta PPV1* - Price dependant on Sport Shown
*Setanta PPV2*

*HD Sports, Must have Sky Sports Pack and also HD service at £10 or $20
Sky Sports HD1 
Sky Sports HD2 *

As you See its not that cheap in the UK to get Soccer either. The only free Soccer is on these Channels below and its lack luster.

*BBC* - FA Cup (Shared with Sky)
UEFA Cup (Shared with other Networks)
England Internationals (Shared with Sky)

*ITV *- Champions League (Shared with Sky)
UEFA Cup (Shared with other Networks)

*Five* - UEFA Cup (Shared with other Networks)
MLS (Delayed)


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

UKintheUS said:


> *Five* - UEFA Cup (Shared with other Networks)
> MLS (Delayed)


You actually watch MLS in Europe?

JPL pointed out earlier, that you folks are on a completely different system out there.

Let me ask you this: Can you get ANY soccer on the lowest tier level? 1 Premiership game a week or so?

In the U.S. - I can watch my local baseball team EVERYDAY on the lowest tier. And my local Football team every week, same for Hockey, same for Basketball. I subscribe to a base package and I get my sports. Now if I want to see EVERY GAME in that sport - then I subscribe to the additional packages.

So in the U.K. - can you watch your local team without buying a package?


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

UKintheUS said:


> Now for those of you that dont know, Football/Soccer in Britain aint that cheap to watch either. The dominant TV service there is the BSkyB Digital Satellite Service, a Newscorp owned Service.
> 
> *Sky Sports Pack, costs £15 or $30 a month.
> What you get:*
> ...


wow.. I knew they were paying a pretty penny. (or should I say pence?).. but.. wow...nor did I realize the exchange rate was $2 for £1 I can see why the "underground" poor quality Chinese streams are becoming so popular.


----------



## UKintheUS (Dec 23, 2005)

None of the Major sports are done at local TV Level. Its all national. Only Sport that is free is on the *BBC*, *ITV*,* Ch4* and *Five*, as i said in the last post Certain *Soccer Matches*, *Snooker*, *Darts* and* F1 *to name a few.

When *BSkyB* started in the 90's its major coup was to buy all the Premiership game rights, as time went by it got more and more of the sports that the UK Gov had to bring in a new law saying that certain Sports or what they call the Crown Jewels must remain *Free to Air*: *Wimbledon*, *World Cup*, *Olympics*, *F1* and a couple of others.

By 2000 Sky had most of the major sports in some form or another. In 2004 the *EU* passed a law saying that Sky was not allowed to have all Premiership Games, Hence *Setanta* winning one of the pakages as of 2007.

As to *MLS*, yes the UK Network, Five has rights to it to show on its Channels (*Five *and *Five U.S.*) It also Show's some *MLB, NBA, NFL, Nascar & X Games.*


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

You guys are getting raked. 

That is too bad. You should stage a revolt. 

While I feel bad for you, I still stand by my statement. In the U.S. - I think there has been an expectation, or standard set, that you can provide a sport specific channel on tier 1. To me - FSC, makes the most sense.


----------



## oenophile (Dec 1, 2006)

Chandu said:


> What do you mean "in the works"? HD telecasts have already been there for quite a while. Check this thread:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=79153
> Yeah, it's already there.


Really? All I see in that thread is a rumor that ESPN2HD will in the future have MLS Soccer on D* -- and a mention that HDNet has a match of the week for MLS. That's 2 HD games per week, max, on D*.

I was actually hoping that GolTV or Fox Soccer Channel or Setanta would be in HD. One or two MLS games per week in HD doesn't really thrill me. (In fact, the last time I watched an entire MLS game was....well....never.) Big fan of Calcio and the UK soccer leagues. Not a big fan of MLS.

Does anyone know anything about the possibility of any of the 3 D* channels with majority soccer content going HD?

(Are the UK/Calcio games even in HD anywhere in the world?)


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

While I'm, in general, dubious of a la carte programming (just don't think it's cost-effective, or some provider would have figured out a way to do it already), I have to think in the area of sports programming it's doable. The reason I don't have the sports pack, e.g., is because I could care less about many of the channels included. Setanta looks promising, except (sorry for those whom this offends) but I could care less about rugby or cricket. While I would love for DirecTV to carry something like FSC on their formerly-known-as total choice tier (man, I have a hard time remembering the new names for these packages), I would be even happier if they offered sport-specific sports packs. Why not have a soccer-lover's sports pack - giving you just the soccer specific channels (Gol, FSC, e.g.). I would be willing to pay a few extra bucks a month just for those two channels without having to shell out all that extra money for the sports pack, or Setanta when I wouldn't watch most of it. Just a thought. DirecTV seems to be the obvious provider to offer something like this, too, since I consider them to really be the sports-lovers television service.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

oenophile said:


> Really? All I see in that thread is a rumor that ESPN2HD will in the future have MLS Soccer on D* -- and a mention that HDNet has a match of the week for MLS. That's 2 HD games per week, max, on D*.


OK, so now you're qualifying your statement saying you only want to watch on DirecTV.

La Liga matches in HD on World Sport HD are also mentioned in that thread, but of course you won't see them on DirecTV.



> I was actually hoping that GolTV or Fox Soccer Channel or Setanta would be in HD.


You will have to keep hoping, cause it ain't happening.



> One or two MLS games per week in HD doesn't really thrill me. (In fact, the last time I watched an entire MLS game was....well....never.) Big fan of Calcio and the UK soccer leagues. Not a big fan of MLS.


That's your prerogative.

As for others who care, that thread mentions MLS coverage on HDNet, ESPN2HD (as well as additional ABC-HD coverage for 3 marquee matches of the season).

And not to be outdone, Comcast SportsNet HD which is a regional sports channel in the Washington DC area (as well as Philadelphia, perhaps?? ) has just announced that theyll cover every single DC United home match for 2007 season on HD!!!











> Does anyone know anything about the possibility of any of the 3 D* channels with majority soccer content going HD?


There is no possibility of that happening.



> (Are the UK/Calcio games even in HD anywhere in the world?)


The thought of watching corrupt Serie A empty stadiums in HD puts me to, ahem, how do I put it politely? Actually, since I don't have anything better to say, the less I say about it, the better.

Sky Sports HD covers English Premiership as well as bunch of other stuff (FA Cup matches, Carling Cup matches, Coca Cola Championship, England and maybe Scotland/Wales internationals - although not too sure about the Scotland/Wales part) in UK.

I have no idea whether Sky Sports HD is available to subscribe in Ireland yet.

In Germany, Bundesliga coverage in HD is available on a channel called Premiere. 3 matches per week are shown in HD. But the channel is only available on Deutsche Telekom's IPTV platform called T-Com. It's not available to any German satellite customers.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Chandu said:


> OK, so now you're qualifying your statement saying you only want to watch on DirecTV.
> 
> La Liga matches in HD on World Sport HD are also mentioned in that thread, but of course you won't see them on DirecTV.


That's probably because this is a DirecTV forum, but I could be mistaken.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

KurtV said:


> That's probably because this is a DirecTV forum, but I could be mistaken.


Being a DirecTV customer doesn't preclude one from being a customer of other platforms such as DISH or cable, but I could be mistaken.

I mean, the last time I checked, there was no local or broader range law prohibiting DirecTV customers from subscribing to services from other providers.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Being a DirecTV customer doesn't preclude one from being a customer of other platforms such as DISH or cable, but I could be mistaken.
> 
> I mean, the last time I checked, there was no local or broader range law prohibiting DirecTV customers from subscribing to services from other providers.


This is a DirecTV forum and thread. The poster, like most reasonable people, assumed that the discussion was about programming provided by DirecTV. Your post asserted that his assumption was unreasonable. That is ridiculous and childish.

The vast, vast majority of consumers in this country have 1 TV provider. Yes, it is possible that someone has 2, 3 or even 4 or more separate providers. It is also exceedingly unlikely.

Grow up.


----------



## oenophile (Dec 1, 2006)

KurtV said:


> This is a DirecTV forum and thread. The poster, like most reasonable people, assumed that the discussion was about programming provided by DirecTV. Your post asserted that his assumption was unreasonable. That is ridiculous and childish.
> 
> The vast, vast majority of consumers in this country have 1 TV provider. Yes, it is possible that someone has 2, 3 or even 4 or more separate providers. It is also exceedingly unlikely.
> 
> Grow up.


Thank you.:icon_peac


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

KurtV said:


> This is a DirecTV forum and thread. The poster, like most reasonable people, assumed that the discussion was about programming provided by DirecTV.


So being a mind-reader, and putting aside possibility of subscribing to multiple platforms, you would also make the following reasonable assumption: Nobody in the history of this forum might have discussed switching from one provider to another based on content of interest to them, perhaps?

Or would such discussion be better served in "People who wish to switch to DISH from DirecTV because they wish to subscribe to World Sport HD for La Liga Football" Forum?

I made an implicit assumption that when people decide to watch something on TV, they decide : "OK, let me watch movie Lord of the Rings, or OK, let me watch La Liga Football". Is your better observation that they decide in their mind, "OK, let me watch some Comcast, or OK, let's watch some DirecTV"?

Or how about, a random anonymous poster/reader searching through this forum for "soccer in HD" in the future, and has never heard about a channel called World Sport HD stumbles upon it? And maybe such a reader decides to select being a DISH subscriber armed with this extra piece of information. I'm sure being a future predictor - on top of being a mind reader - you would advise me, no such thing is possible. Or such an exercise of information distribution is not worthwhile. Maybe you're aware of a better feature in forum search for DirecTV forum, which filters out any mention of DISH or channels on other platforms. Let me check with the moderator of this forum for such an enhancement I'm not aware of. Or at least get them to implement it, if they haven't already.

I mean, help me out please. Being a newcomer to this forum and not knowing about the ways of making these posts, I'm totally lost here. Also being completely ignorant about the specific domain knowledge such as "soccer telecast rights" or "channel information and distribution across carriers", or even in general "various soccer leagues across the world", I have had absolutely no chance to contribute any concrete information.

Since you've personally made so much contribution in this thread, bringing concrete pieces of information other posters could use, instead of making sound-bite snide remarks, obviously you're far more highly qualified than me for providing such advice.



> Your post asserted that his assumption was unreasonable.


My post asserted nothing of the sort. My post repeated his subset qualification of "content on DirecTV" just so there is common understanding. Watching legal proceedings on CourtTV or senate/congressional political process on C-SPAN/C-SPAN2 would show that such method of repeating a qualification to establish common ground is a routine part of civil discourse. But maybe you would have better advice on civil discourse, being so obviously qualified in it?

BTW, should I qualify my statement with watching "CourtTV and C-SPAN/C-SPAN2 on DirecTV" since this is a DirecTV forum?



> That is ridiculous and childish.


Pot meet kettle.

Kettle meet pot.



> Yes, it is possible that someone has 2, 3 or even 4 or more separate providers. It is also exceedingly unlikely.


You're telling me.

I mean, you're really, really telling me. Gee, thanks so much for my chance of learning about this, as I would've never known about it from my own personal experience.

You could also possibly tell me about likelihood of a foreign born person becoming a governor of a US state, or likelihood of a woman becoming US president, or many other matters of likelihood in general life. Obviously, you're so much enlightened in general offering advices to grow up, I would love to learn more about the likelihoods of many other things in the world.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

We need a new poll -

Should DBSTalk BAN users who attack other posters intelligence, and opinions.

My vote is yes. Too bad my vote doesn't seem to count.


----------



## oenophile (Dec 1, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> We need a new poll -
> 
> Should DBSTalk BAN users who attack other posters intelligence, and opinions.
> 
> My vote is yes. Too bad my vote doesn't seem to count.


+1

(I especially agree with this when you click on someone's "Find more posts by..." and you find a consistent similar pattern. Sad, really. Waste of time and kills the thread.):icon_peac


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

oenophile said:


> +1
> 
> (I especially agree with this when you click on someone's "Find more posts by..." and you find a consistent similar pattern. Sad, really. Waste of time and kills the thread.):icon_peac


There is an obvious agenda here - killing the thread is important to him for some reason.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Okay...

First my apologize for not giving this thread the attention that it needed..

2nd... What the heck?
We can discuss the pro's and con's of adding the Beauty Channel, National GeoGraphic, Wealth-HD, or the Weather Chanenl in HD?

But because it is Soccer? 

---------------
IMHO - Why Soccer isn't as popular her in the United States as it is else where, is DEFINENTLY because it is not on TV more often.

Why? In most parts of this country High Level competitive soccer is not in our backyards... It is not "must go see"... there are so many other easy access alternatives.
Similar reason why I am not into Hockey? Because for me here in Chicago... It costs about $250 for two people to go see a game (After parking, tickets, food, ect).. Similar for the Soccer... It is not a "destination" for most here in Chicago.

We get our kids involved in it, as it FANTASTIC excerises and introduction to sporting competition... with minimal cost.
And the structure of the game allows it to be a "big" as it needs to be... Not like Baseball and Basketball.

I am all for adding the Soccer channel's...
Look what has happen to Golf in the last 10 years... since it has now been on TV more often because of some of the player's involved.

---

If you want to continue to discuss the merits of adding the channel or not... be it what ever package and price..

Please do so..

If you want to discuss the merits of Soccer as a sport... or one worth of being televised... That is a discussion for the Sports forum... 

While having multiple carriers is a solution for some... it is just not a practical solution for 99% (IMHO) of the people out there. As much as I would like to add FTA to my home setup... my wife (and neighboors) would really raise an eyebrow if I add yet another Dish to my house...


----------



## oenophile (Dec 1, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If you want to continue to discuss the merits of adding the channel or not... be it what ever package and price..Please do so..


First time responder to an Earl post....and all I can say is --> I agree on all points 100%. (No, not kissing up--just truth.)

My thoughts on the Soccer channel(s) are:
1) It would be nice if D* would make either GolTV or Fox Soccer Channel a standard sports channel (one that wouldn't require the Sports Package, similar to ESPN or your local sports channels). 
2) At the same time, I understand, economically, that D* might know that only a small subset of sports fans want to see an all-soccer channel and it does make some sense for them to keep those two channels within the Sports Package. I, personally, don't mind paying extra to see those channels...but...I'm subscribing to everything ATM, so I'm not sure I'm a good example.
3) What would be really cool, IMHO, would be if they would get an HD soccer oriented channel. Of all the sports that can benefit from HD, I would think Soccer would have to be right up there with Football. Being able to see the extra detail and the field in 16:9 has gotta help. I think that, alone, would be terrific.
4) I'm happy that some MLS games are in HD on HDNet and the deuce. However, I'd really like to see some of the international leagues (Mexico, UK, Calcio, Germany, etc.) in HD at least once and a while. I might be able to convince some of my friends to watch a game or two with me!

Ultimately--it would be nice if more soccer was free of charge in basic packages. But given its current niche, I think that unless one of the soccer leagues sponsors it (ala NFL Network), it isn't going to happen. But, folks should be pretty happy that it is even possible to get these channels (even after paying extra). Soccer isn't exactly a popular TV sport and the fact that we can get them at all here in the USA is pretty cool. All, of course, IMHO.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> Ahhh-
> 
> But with the NFL you can watch from the time you wake up on Sunday until the time you go to bed. Not true with Soccer.


Jay -- at least try looking at the Guide before you say something that silly. 

Yesterday - an average Saturday for my wife and me -- we recorded nine football matches. We could have recorded double that number; but, out of respect for our insane footie brains, we stopped at nine. Of those, we watched five to completion over the course of the day. Slipped through the other four to catch the goals.

Today -- an average Sunday -- we recorded five football matches. Again, we could have recorded twice as many or more. We watched three to completion and slipped the other two.

Without recording everything available, I currently have two scheduled for Monday -- five for Tuesday -- four for Wednesday -- don't recall offhand what's on for Thursday -- but, there's another already in the program for Friday.

I record all the EPL and Coca-Cola Championship matches offered. We watch Nick and Steven on Tuesday nights. I record all the SPL matches offered -- except Rangers. I record all the Champions League Matches, UEFA Cup matches. When MLS is on, true, I usually only watch the one match in HD. But, I've been following the Concacaf Gold Cup and will watch the Super League w/Mexico. We watched the Asian Champions League. When Euro Cup qualifiers are on, that's another 5-7 matches per week.

Toss in a couple of matches from Ligue 1 and Serie A, each week -- and you begin to understand how much I'm enjoying my retirement.

Yes, I resent buying the whole sports package just to get FSC. Though I catch a few program on some of the others -- and since I've been a practicing motorhead for the past 53 years -- I can't wait for Speed to show up in HD, this autumn [or earlier].

I don't begrudge Setanta at all. They bring me mass quantities of football I would never have gotten from FSC or Gol. And their PQ is better than the other two.
-----
BTW, though my own discussion with FSC and Setanta confirm little chance of HD in the near term, there is no reason for them to refrain from offering us SD in 16x9 -- which is a hell of a lot better than watching them bloody awful bars either side of 4x3. They both can catch 16x9 feeds from Sky -- though I really can't stand the show, Dream Team usually is offered that way -- or was.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

KurtV said:


> This is a DirecTV forum and thread. The poster, like most reasonable people, assumed that the discussion was about programming provided by DirecTV. Your post asserted that his assumption was unreasonable. That is ridiculous and childish.
> 
> The vast, vast majority of consumers in this country have 1 TV provider. Yes, it is possible that someone has 2, 3 or even 4 or more separate providers. It is also exceedingly unlikely.
> 
> Grow up.


Just wandered into this thread -- see my note above.

Backtracking, I bumped into this portion of the thread -- and just would like to second the quoted post. One could also hijack the topic for a discussion of sophistry; but, I think that's already been well illustrated.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Ed Campbell said:


> Jay -- at least try looking at the Guide before you say something that silly.
> 
> Yesterday - an average Saturday for my wife and me -- we recorded nine football matches. We could have recorded double that number; but, out of respect for our insane footie brains, we stopped at nine. Of those, we watched five to completion over the course of the day. Slipped through the other four to catch the goals.


Ed:

Exactly.

The amount of Association Football coverage in USA is beyond insane. Very few places in the world have this much amount of coverage at this price.

BTW, your comment about GolTV not being able to bring mass quantities of football is a bit inaccurate. The amount of La Liga, Bundesliga and Serie A coverage GolTV brings is beyond insane. Just like Setanta. And it's mostly all quality.

Add in the HD coverage with World Sport HD, HDNet, ESPN2-HD etc. and it's absolutely insane. I do not ever, ever, remember having access to so much diverse content from so many leagues in the world.

NFL coverage cannot hold a candle to such coverage glut. It's only possible trying to follow too many collegiate conferences of NCAA college football in this country could come close in comparison. Not that I personally follow any of it. But I've heard from people who do that they have insane amount of choices for college football coverage. That's the only analogy I can think of.


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

Ever since I got Setanta, a little over a month ago.. my ritual is to wake up at 7:25AM or so, so I can catch the 7:30 Kickoff for the early game. I am very sleep deprived on Satrudays, but it's a good time :-D By the time 10AM rolls around, I am flipping back and forth between 2 or 3 games! unless one of them happen to feature Liverpool or Inter Milan, then I will just watch that game. Then there is a noon game, and then I switch gears a bit sometimes around 2:30 to watch a newly liked sport, Gaelic Football.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> 2nd... What the heck?
> We can discuss the pro's and con's of adding the Beauty Channel, National GeoGraphic, Wealth-HD, or the Weather Chanenl in HD?
> 
> But because it is Soccer?


What exactly do you mean by the "but because it is for soccer" question? Do you mean, why should DirecTV give special consideration for adding HD soccer channels? Or do you mean it's not worthwhile for soccer channels to be in HD?

Fact of the matter is, watching soccer in SD and in HD is like day and night difference. The 16:9 screen size literally brings out the entire pitch, allowing various play formations to be seen, which are just not possible to see in 4:3. In another post called "Why isn't ESPN2-HD wide-screen?" in general HDTV forum, a poster complained exactly about this. In a match on Setanta, when original feed was widescreen but was cropped, a player was taking free kick, but wasn't even visible being in the cropped part of the screen. The ball just literally bounced into air out of nowhere on the screen.

Obviously, like other field sports such as American Football, better resolution for soccer is a godsend. You can actually read the numbers on back of shirts of distant players being able to tell which player is involved in which moves. Very difficult to do in SD.

As far as prediction of DirecTV itself getting involved in a "new HD" channel just for soccer? There is no chance of that happening. None of the 3 primary channels right now have any intention of going HD. They just can't afford it. Setanta is only possibility for going wide-screen, but HD is beyond yonder.

Also, there is nothing specific for DirecTV to do about this. This is not exactly a DirecTV problem, as they're not in the business of "forming" new HD channels, which I'm sure you can lecture me about.  DirecTV already carries ESPN2-HD, HDNet and indirectly ABC-HD. So, there will be plenty of HD soccer coverage on DirecTV.

I'm not sure of possibility of a regional sports channel such as Comcast Sportsnet HD being carried by DirecTV. You would probably have better information on if it is already available, or will be provided in the future.

Then there is the last channel World Sport HD, which actually has had soccer in HD for many years now. It's not DirecTV's problem to launch such a new channel, it's only their problem to get such a channel in their lineup. Right now, it is only available on DISH, by virtue of being a VOOM channel.

It is possible VOOM channels may get added to DirecTV sometime in the future. I have no idea about predictions for this. Just like the Comcast Sportsnet HD question, you probably may have better information about such predictions.

Hope this is ample clarification to set context for "HD soccer" right. Maybe you understood all of this from information already posted before, but it just wasn't clear from the question you posted what you meant.



> While having multiple carriers is a solution for some... it is just not a practical solution for 99% (IMHO) of the people out there. As much as I would like to add FTA to my home setup... my wife (and neighboors) would really raise an eyebrow if I add yet another Dish to my house...


Contrary to what you may think, having multiple satellite subscriptions is not that out of the ordinary. I know of a number of people with a dual DISH + DirecTV setup, specifically those interested in ethnic or super-niche content like soccer. Yours truly included. It's a lot easier and cost effective to do, because DirecTV has the cheaper "basic" tier, which doesn't need subscription for whole enchilada of channels. So, DISH can be a primary platform and DirecTV an auxiliary add-on.

Of course a satellite + basic cable is a much more common situation than that.

FTA is probably a worse proposition due to the bigger size of Ku-Band antenna required.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Tony1097 said:


> Ever since I got Setanta, a little over a month ago.. my ritual is to wake up at 7:25AM or so, so I can catch the 7:30 Kickoff for the early game. I am very sleep deprived on Satrudays, but it's a good time :-D By the time 10AM rolls around, I am flipping back and forth between 2 or 3 games! unless one of them happen to feature Liverpool or Inter Milan, then I will just watch that game. Then there is a noon game, and then I switch gears a bit sometimes around 2:30 to watch a newly liked sport, Gaelic Football.


Get a DVR. You'll be able to catch up with your sleep.


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Get a DVR. You'll be able to catch up with your sleep.


but watching it Early in the Morning is half the fun!


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Tony1097 said:


> but watching it Early in the Morning is half the fun!


You must be single without any kids' commitments etc. then. 

Come to think of it, I'm wondering if this Setanta + GolTV combination is responsible for any marriage breakups or other family problems in this country.


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

Chandu said:


> You must be single without any kids' commitments etc. then.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'm wondering if this Setanta + GolTV combination is responsible for any marriage breakups or other family problems in this country.


heh, wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Ed Campbell said:


> Jay -- at least try looking at the Guide before you say something that silly.


Ed- my point all along is that you had to pay Xtra to get that kind of coverage. I can get the NFL on gameday all day long and coverage of the NFL anytime I want. All that at Tier 1.

I don't have the sports package - I'm looking at my guide - no soccer!

What is so silly about that?


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Ed-

I have never said that I think D* should add Gol, or Sentanta to its Tier 1. I asked for Fox Soccer Channel because that seems the most logical. 

I have said though that it would be nice if there were a "soccer" sports package for all three channels.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> Ed- my point all along is that you had to pay Xtra to get that kind of coverage. I can get the NFL on gameday all day long and coverage of the NFL anytime I want. All that at Tier 1.
> 
> I don't have the sports package - I'm looking at my guide - no soccer!
> 
> What is so silly about that?


Maybe I'm missing something here. You get a full day of NFL coverage without subscribing to the Sunday Ticket?

Including the OTA I can receive -- which ain't D*'s lineup -- there are only 2-3 NFL games in any one market with no other choices -- without ST.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Chandu said:


> You must be single without any kids' commitments etc. then.
> 
> Come to think of it, I'm wondering if this Setanta + GolTV combination is responsible for any marriage breakups or other family problems in this country.


Or do what I did -- marry a wonderful woman! She enjoys F1 and WRC and especially the Dakar as much as I do. She's a Wolves fan in the Coca-Cola Championship and Blackburn Rovers in the EPL.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Ed Campbell said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here. You get a full day of NFL coverage without subscribing to the Sunday Ticket?
> 
> Including the OTA I can receive -- which ain't D*'s lineup -- there are only 2-3 NFL games in any one market with no other choices -- without ST.


There are at least 2, and as many as 4 (depending on your market), on Sundays plus the Sunday night game. You can basically watch football from 12:00 PM to about 10:00 (Central) without interupption (while OTA obviously isn't in D*'s basic lineup, the same programming via the SD or HD locals is).


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Chandu said:


> What exactly do you mean by the "but because it is for soccer" question? Do you mean, why should DirecTV give special consideration for adding HD soccer channels? Or do you mean it's not worthwhile for soccer channels to be in HD?


As I stated in my first reply... 
We have had, and continue to have fairly productive and constructive discussion about the addition of other channels.

But for some reason, it appears to me... that because this one is related to Soccer... it has attracked a little more "emotion" to it, and the conversation hasn't been as productive or constructive.

And I am refering SPECIFICALLY to the conversation, and not to any "special treatment" because it is soccer... The "merits" for adding a channel or not, should be identicial regardless of the content... even though content is one of the metrics that nees to be considered.



Chandu said:


> Fact of the matter is, watching soccer in SD and in HD is like day and night difference. The 16:9 screen size literally brings out the entire pitch, allowing various play formations to be seen, which are just not possible to see in 4:3.


I don't think anyone is arguing that point... watching anything SD vs HD is like day and night... especiall when it is sports.



Chandu said:


> As far as prediction of DirecTV itself getting involved in a "new HD" channel just for soccer? There is no chance of that happening. None of the 3 primary channels right now have any intention of going HD.


If there was a provider offering an HD Soccer channel... I could seriously see DirecTV considering adding it to it's line up... afterall... In less then a year, they should have the ability to offer just about any HD network that is out there.



Chandu said:


> I'm not sure of possibility of a regional sports channel such as Comcast Sportsnet HD being carried by DirecTV. You would probably have better information on if it is already available, or will be provided in the future.


Some area's (such as Chicago), already have Comcast SportsNet in HD carried on DirecTV... again as the bandwith increases, and more of the RSN's sign on... I would expect that all RSN's that are willing to allow their HD signal on DirecTV... will be carried



Chandu said:


> Then there is the last channel World Sport HD, which actually has had soccer in HD for many years now. It's not DirecTV's problem to launch such a new channel, it's only their problem to get such a channel in their lineup. Right now, it is only available on DISH, by virtue of being a VOOM channel.


If that channel is available to DirecTV to carry, at a practical price point.
I would probably expect it to be carried.



Chandu said:


> Contrary to what you may think, having multiple satellite subscriptions is not that out of the ordinary. I know of a number of people with a dual DISH + DirecTV setup, specifically those interested in ethnic or super-niche content like soccer.


I am not saying it is not done... And I am not saying it isn't a practical solution for everyone.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Ed Campbell said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here. You get a full day of NFL coverage without subscribing to the Sunday Ticket?
> 
> Including the OTA I can receive -- which ain't D*'s lineup -- there are only 2-3 NFL games in any one market with no other choices -- without ST.


Ed - Yes - I DID NOT say I get to watch ALL the games, I said I can wake up Sunday morning and start watching shows about the NFL. Then watch a 1 pm game, a 4 pm game, and the Sunday night game until 10 or 11 at night. Not to mention I can turn on the NFL Channel at any time and watch something related to the NFL.

At tier 1, we get nothing close to this for soccer. 1 MLS game a week and a spattering (if any) of Premiership reruns. (okay maybe 2 MLS games if I PAY for the HD package)

That 1 game is just about all the soccer you get all week. By adding FSC to tier 1, I would be able to watch (something - anything) soccer related most times of the day, and would also get more MLS games, and a few Premiership games.

No offense intended here, but why is my position so difficult for a few people to grasp?

Asking to Add FSC is not equal to Asking for seeing ALL SOCCER GAMES free!!!!

Why do a few people here assume so?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

While I agree with Earl that this thread seemed to invoke some strong feelings (stronger than normal), and while I agree that DirecTV would only consider doing something like this if they can make it profitable, I guess I'm of the same mind as Jay W. Not sure why this thread devolved into the merits of soccer as a sport... or why it became unreasonable to make this request - afterall, yes, DirecTV will do it if they can make it worth-while, they wouldn't consider it if it were not raised in the first place.

That's also why I liked the idea of offering mini-sports packs. Instead of spending an extra $12 a month for the sports pack, giving you lots of sports that you may not care about, why not a sport-specific channel pack that let's you spend less per month (say $5) and get just one or two channels dedicated to the sport you care about? Is that feasible? I have no idea, but I can't imagine, from a technical perspective, it's that difficult of a nut to crack. And I believe there would be some interest in this - I can justify spending an extra $5 a month, but not $12, for something like this. May not sound like much of a difference, but when you're trying to balance cost with what you get for the money, for ME the sports pack isn't worth it.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Well at least D has soccer covered. It might not be where you want it to be, but it is there. Try D about tennis. This is starting the 3rd year I have tried to get them to pick up The Tennis Channel and put it anywhere they want to put it. I said I would pay no matter where they put it. But they still won't even pick it up   :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Dolly said:


> Well at least D has soccer covered. It might not be where you want it to be, but it is there. Try D about tennis. This is starting the 3rd year I have tried to get them to pick up The Tennis Channel and put it anywhere they want to put it. I said I would pay no matter where they put it. But they still won't even pick it up   :beatdeadhorse:


Yeah, but soccer is a REAL sport  Just kidding... this thread has gotten too calm and I wanted to see if I could drive up the emotional responses again... In reality, I like tennis too (many years ago when I had HBO I watched their Wimbleton coverage all the time), and I'd be all in favor of DirecTV adding it... but I guess that's another thread.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But for some reason, it appears to me... that because this one is related to Soccer... it has attracked a little more "emotion" to it, and the conversation hasn't been as productive or constructive.


Don't know specifically about those other channels. But in this case, to be fair, the request started out weird. Because every single one of those channels - well at least subset of it called Fox Soccer Channel - has already been carried for almost eons now, for a reasonable price in the Sports Pack. There is no question of "adding" it, the request is about moving it or re-adding it base tier.

There are only 2 other channels which carry bunch of soccer, but aren't carried by DirecTV : ESPN Deportes and World Sport HD. Requests for "adding" these would go a lot smoother IMHO, simply because it is actual content addition which right now just isn't carried anywhere by DirecTV.



> Some area's (such as Chicago), already have Comcast SportsNet in HD carried on DirecTV... again as the bandwith increases, and more of the RSN's sign on... I would expect that all RSN's that are willing to allow their HD signal on DirecTV... will be carried


Thanks. Right now, is their some extra add-on which lets you include various regional RSNs? For example, if I'm in Chicago would I have the ability to watch Comcast SportNet HD from Washington DC area today? Or will it have to wait for bandwidth increase as you say?


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Ed Campbell said:


> She enjoys F1 and WRC and especially the Dakar as much as I do. She's a Wolves fan in the Coca-Cola Championship and Blackburn Rovers in the EPL.




Hehe!! You must be living an interesting life!


----------



## UKintheUS (Dec 23, 2005)

So I e:mailed Setanta USA. And this is what they have said back.



> What with most of our broadcast partners beginning to broadcast in HD in Europe, Setanta is looking to launching an HD sports Channel in the US some time in 2008.
> 
> I hope this answers your question


----------



## Alexandrepsf (Oct 26, 2005)

This is good news. I hope it will come even sooner than 2008.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

UKintheUS said:


> So I e:mailed Setanta USA. And this is what they have said back.


When I asked same thing about a month back, they had said it was extremely unlikely due to bandwidth cost issues. It will be great if it actually happens, but don't expect it to be at the same price. We'll have to be ready to shell out more, goes without saying.

Also, I would take the 2008 time frame with a grain of salt. If the Setanta Canada channel launch "slipped again, will show up any time now, slipped again" is any indication, delays wouldn't be out of question. Then of course, there is the question for DirecTV themselves to have appropriate bandwidth to be available at that point, assuming such HD arrangement would be DirecTV specific.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Chandu said:


> Thanks. Right now, is their some extra add-on which lets you include various regional RSNs? For example, if I'm in Chicago would I have the ability to watch Comcast SportNet HD from Washington DC area today? Or will it have to wait for bandwidth increase as you say?


Bandwith limits... Hopefully once the new ones are up... teh HD RSN's will be available everywhere.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Dolly said:


> Well at least D has soccer covered. It might not be where you want it to be, but it is there. Try D about tennis. This is starting the 3rd year I have tried to get them to pick up The Tennis Channel and put it anywhere they want to put it. I said I would pay no matter where they put it. But they still won't even pick it up   :beatdeadhorse:


While they may not have the Tennis Channel (for what ever reason).
They hands down have the best coverage of the US Open.

The US Open Mix was AWSOME last year...

(back to Soccer)


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If that channel is available to DirecTV to carry, at a practical price point.
> I would probably expect it to be carried.


Thanks for the Comcast SportsNet HD clarification.

Coming back to above comment, which referred to World Sport HD. As I said in the earlier post, it is a VOOM channel. The way I understand VOOM business model, they're interested in selling all of their channels together as a package, not individual channels. And I haven't heard any intentions from their part to change their strategy. For me personally, it doesn't matter as I get all VOOM channels on DISH. But have you heard of any business negotiations between VOOM and DirecTV, such that a channel like that could finally show up on their lienup? Or does it boil down to bandwidth issue again?


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

No worries. as soccer gains momentum you too will be subject to regional blackouts like football and baseball fans.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Chandu said:


> Thanks for the Comcast SportsNet HD clarification.
> 
> Coming back to above comment, which referred to World Sport HD. As I said in the earlier post, it is a VOOM channel. The way I understand VOOM business model, they're interested in selling all of their channels together as a package, not individual channels. And I haven't heard any intentions from their part to change their strategy. For me personally, it doesn't matter as I get all VOOM channels on DISH. But have you heard of any business negotiations between VOOM and DirecTV, such that a channel like that could finally show up on their lienup? Or does it boil down to bandwidth issue again?


I have not heard anything about any discussion between DirecTV and VOOM.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

I was interested in everyone's thoughts on this but I got bored on the 2nd page. So if what I say has been discussed please forgive me. For the record I run an team in an adult league here in Memphis.

I can see both sides of the argument. Yes I would like for the channel to be on a basic tier, to save money. But I can understand why it's in a sports tier. If they added it to the basic tier what about GolTV? Would that stay in the sports tier or move also?

I will be dropping the sports tier after ManU raises the trophy so I can save $10/month. I tried dropping the sports pack for Setanta and 3 weeks later switched it back. I couldn't justify paying $14/month for 1 channel when I could pay $4/month less and get many more channels and 2 soccer channels, not to mention more college football games. If I had more money I probably would've kept both but at the time I didn't. I was following where ManU was playing, and most games moved to FSC. I'm sure when the EPL starts back up I will re-add the sports pack, but during the summer FSC to me is not very interesting. 

Now regarding MLS, many games on HDNet were the same ones that were on FSC. Guess which channel I watched. And with ESPN2 (paying for ESPN2HD) being in a basic tier that is an additional MLS game. So getting 2 out of 3 and sometimes 2 out of 2 (when HDNet and FSC broadcast the same game) games that will suffice for me. 

Now if we were able to get EPL games in HD, I'd pay for that!


----------



## Tony1097 (Apr 26, 2006)

Ext 721 said:


> No worries. as soccer gains momentum you too will be subject to regional blackouts like football and baseball fans.


This does exist for the MLS. They have MLS shootout that lets you get the out of market games, etc like the other sports packages.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

iceman2a said:


> Let me make one point about soccer and admit something about it that I don't understand! OFFSIDES!! At somepoint on the field it should fall on the defender to defend and not let a player get behind him!
> 
> If this exposes my ignorance of the game so be it!!


A simple explanation is when you pass the ball to a player on your team and they are behind the last defender on the opposite team.

You appear to be a football fan so I'll put it in football terms:
If a defense player is across the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped. Think of the football and the last defender as the same thing. If they are on the wrong side then they are offsides.

Ok that's as far in this thread I orginally got.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Great news!!!!!

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/03/05/daily11.html?t=printable

80% of GolTV has been sold to Dave Checketts for staggering $200 million, valuing the channel at an unbelievable $250 million!!!

Apart from a dramatic increase in coverage of World Cup qualifiers from CONMEBOL, prospects of HD coverage on GolTV just got a lot better!!!!

Bundesliga in HD, more La Liga than just World Sport HD in HD!!!! I can only hope!!


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Assuming the title of this thread is provocative enough to get just about every US soccer fan to read it, and taking into consideration the fact the thread has been active now for 4 or 5 days, the results are really discouraging. 

I don't know the stats on visitors to this board, but I would guess that less then 100 answers to the poll is a very small percentage of responses. 

I am not claiming I expected an out pouring of support for the thread, (frankly I am surprised it made it this long) but I am surprised that the percentage of soccer fans out here is so low. Or more to the point - soccer fans who care about having a tier 1 channel dedicated to the sport. 

However - Maybe the low response to this poll shows it would be better for D* overall to add the channel as suggested. It's speculative - but...

It would be interesting to see D* info on how many subscribers order the Sports Pack for soccer, and how many pay for Sentanta. I am guessing (not asserting) if they added FSC and GOL to their basic package - and did some marketing to position themselves as the Content provider of choice for soccer fans, that they would see bigger overall revenue numbers from the added subscribers. Instead of milking 10-25 a month out of die hard soccer fans, add that many more subscribers who subscribe to D* because thats where they can get their soccer. You get all those people who can't afford/or don't want to pay 10-25 a month, but would have yet ANOTHER reason to choose D* over Comcast.

A little creative marketing is all it would take. Soccer fans are a close group (usually). They talk. They gather. D* could benefit greatly from this IMHO.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> Assuming the title of this thread is provocative enough to get just about every US soccer fan to read it, and taking into consideration the fact the thread has been active now for 4 or 5 days, the results are really discouraging.
> 
> I don't know the stats on visitors to this board, but I would guess that less then 100 answers to the poll is a very small percentage of responses.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't get too discouraged over the results. Remember, this is a DBS forum, not a soccer forum... so the population here isn't indicative of the country as a whole. I used to think that soccer was an "underground" sport in this country... until 1994. I mentioned before that I went to a couple World Cup games while the cup was here. The first game was Italy/Ireland. Given the fact that this was in northern NJ (the meadowlands - no NOT NY for all those who think that the Giants and Jets are actually NY teams), and given the Irish and Italian populations in the area, it didn't surprise me at all that the game was totally sold out - the stadium was full to capacity. What surprised me was another game we went to - Saudi Arabia vs. Morocco. No offense to anyone, but neither are real powerhouse teams. I don't doubt that there's a decent Arabic and Moroccan population in the NYC area, but certainly not enough to sell out THAT game too, right? Wrong. Granted you bought the tickets in block, so the fact that the game was "sold out" isn't surprising - if you wanted to see Italy/Ireland, you also got tickets for Saudi Arabia/Morocco. But the stadium was just as full for that game as it was for the Italy/Ireland game. THAT surprised me. People just wanted to see a soccer match. The fact that it was 140 degrees (or so it felt in the stadium) didn't deter anyone from showing up.

The fans are out there. I think they just tend to shy away from leagues like the MLS. I can understand that - the MLS doesn't get enough TV coverage (yeah, here we go again) for me to be able to follow too many games - that and the fact that I now live in an area without an MLS team means I catch very few MLS games. I just don't think it has the popularity that the sport overall does in the country.

The good news is that I think things are getting better. The sport IS taken more seriously. I remember watching the 1990 cup on TV. I gave ABC credit for carrying the games - but they lost points when I realized that they didn't figure out that soccer games need to be shown without interruption. They've since caught onto that fact, and show them more correctly. I still think the announcing could use some work, though. While they attract some folks who know what they're talking about, many of those people aren't exactly the best at announcing a game. And then there are those who have no understanding of the sport, who feel the need to fill the air with chatter. So you get insipid comments like "and he kicked the ball out of bounds again... that'll be a throw-in..." No kidding? Really? Wow, I couldn't have figured that out from what I actually just SAW on my TV. I get frustrated by some of the coverage - so I'll either turn the volume way down, or if the game is also being carried on a Spanish-speaking station (e.g. Univision) I'll flip to that. I may only understand bits and pieces of what they're saying, but it's clear that those announcers have a genuine love for the game.


----------



## Steady Teddy (Jan 23, 2007)

Chandu said:


> prospects of HD coverage on GolTV just got a lot better!!!!


How do you figure this?


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Steady Teddy said:


> How do you figure this?


$200 million is a number through the roof. For sure, CONMEBOL World Cup qualification rights won't cost that much. Bundesliga and La Liga both have HD coverage up and running already. The money has to go for something useful somewhere. If Setanta USA starts bringing Sky Sports HD feeds for English Premiership, look for GolTV to be pressed to spend that money on HD. They've already maxed out of rights fees on various leagues. There isn't worthwhile additional content left to spend money on (excepting CONMEBOL qualifiers already mentioned above).


----------



## Steady Teddy (Jan 23, 2007)

Chandu said:


> $200 million is a number through the roof. For sure, CONMEBOL World Cup qualification rights won't cost that much. Bundesliga and La Liga both have HD coverage up and running already. The money has to go for something useful somewhere. If Setanta USA starts bringing Sky Sports HD feeds for English Premiership, look for GolTV to be pressed to spend that money on HD. They've already maxed out of rights fees on various leagues. There isn't worthwhile additional content left to spend money on (excepting CONMEBOL qualifiers already mentioned above).


Does Checketts have more cash than ESPN? Disneyvision have rights to CL, which is only the biggest sporting competition in all of Europe. Yet the only game shown in HD last year was the final in Paris. Why? Because ESPN sent their own cameras out there to televise it in HD. Why won't they do that for more CL games? And if ESPN won't do it, do you really think GOLTV will spend the cash on Deportivo-Racing or Roma-Inter?

My crystal ball just doesn't see HD in GolTV's future anytime soon.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Steady Teddy said:


> Does Checketts have more cash than ESPN? Disneyvision have rights to CL, which is only the biggest sporting competition in all of Europe. Yet the only game shown in HD last year was the final in Paris. Why? Because ESPN sent their own cameras out there to televise it in HD. Why won't they do that for more CL games? And if ESPN won't do it, do you really think GOLTV will spend the cash on Deportivo-Racing or Roma-Inter?
> 
> My crystal ball just doesn't see HD in GolTV's future anytime soon.


Is Champions League ESPN's bread and butter or NFL Draft/NFL Live etc?

BTW, ESPN doesn't really need to send their cameras in future for Champions League if they wanted to. In 2006 in Paris, they were merely pilot testing their HD strategy ahead of World Cup. But considering that Sky Sports HD already has Champions League in HD, ESPN doesn't really need their own HD equipment. I'm hoping UEFA has their own HD (or at least widescreen) common feed.​
Is La Liga GolTV's bread and butter?

What does Roma-Inter have anything to do with? Even in Italy there aren't proper HD telecasts. Sky Italia tried, but I have no idea if they were successful. And add to the fact that even in Italy, ratings are sinking faster than a stone due to all corruption, police murder leading to empty stadiums, worthless AC Milan matches, Juventus in Serie B etc. Serie A has its own major problems, so don't even bring them up. Where did you see me mention Serie A?

Your Deportivo-Racing comment is nothing but a distraction. You should probably be already aware of World Sport HD La Liga coverage centered around teams like Barcelona, Real Madrid and sometimes Atletico Madrid or Real Betis etc. Where do you think World Sport HD got rights to those games? That's right, they purchased them from GolTV. Given that GolTV has its own cash to burn now, what makes you think they cannot buy back those rights back from World Sport HD and expand on them?


----------



## Steady Teddy (Jan 23, 2007)

Chandu said:


> Is Champions League ESPN's bread and butter or NFL Draft/NFL Live etc?
> 
> BTW, ESPN doesn't really need to send their cameras in future for Champions League if they wanted to. In 2006 in Paris, they were merely pilot testing their HD strategy ahead of World Cup. But considering that Sky Sports HD already has Champions League in HD, ESPN doesn't really need their own HD equipment. I'm hoping UEFA has their own HD (or at least widescreen) common feed.​
> Is La Liga GolTV's bread and butter?
> ...


The teams I mentioned were not intended to be a distraction. Those are the types of games covered by the network now-their bread and butter. How many games in Europe are broadcasted in HD per week now and and how many of those games does GOLTV have the rigts to? How many games per week does World Sport televise?

And GOLTV first has to _go_ HD. I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Steady Teddy said:


> The teams I mentioned were not intended to be a distraction. Those are the types of games covered by the network now-their bread and butter.


Honestly, even today GolTV passes up on those kinds of games. They tend to focus on Sevilla, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Atletico Madrid etc. Nobody said they cover 100% of La Liga, even though that's their bread and butter. Nobody expects them to.



> How many games in Europe are broadcasted in HD per week now and and how many of those games does GOLTV have the rigts to?


I'll need to do my research on the HD in Europe part of question. As I said above, GolTV tends to focus on above kinds of matches. So even if they had rights to 100% of them, that's not very relevant. They don't need to do all of their La Liga coverage in HD. Just some of it. Basically, expand on what's already there.



> How many games per week does World Sport televise?


Only 1. See, that's where the money part comes in. World Sport HD can't afford to do more. With more money, I could see all of games involving Real Madrid, Sevilla, Barcelona this season to have been in HD.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

truth it shouldn't be there. if it was, they wouldn't be making the necessary $$ to pay the contract fees with the various leagues they are associated with. I am a subscriber to setanta, direct kick, and of course get gol, fse and fsc via the sports pack. personally what i can hardly wait to see more soccer in HD.

i am extremely satisfied with the SD options that directv options, with one exception. GIVE ME A CHANCE TO GET ESPN DEPORTES! :sure: 

i must run, the champions league games are about to begin.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

dhines said:


> truth it shouldn't be there. if it was, they wouldn't be making the necessary $$ to pay the contract fees with the various leagues they are associated with.


Completely agreed.



> GIVE ME A CHANCE TO GET ESPN DEPORTES! :sure:


It's coming to DirecTV Para Todos effective April 1. That's not an April Fools joke. It will be in DirecTV Para Todos only. Not in the Sports Pack.

That would leave only World Sport HD as a missing channel on DirecTV. If GolTV decides to buy back its content from them, it may not be so relevant.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Completely agreed.
> 
> It's coming to DirecTV Para Todos effective April 1. That's not an April Fools joke. It will be in DirecTV Para Todos only. Not in the Sports Pack.
> 
> That would leave only World Sport HD as a missing channel on DirecTV. If GolTV decides to buy back its content from them, it may not be so relevant.


are you serious? where did you hear about this? if this is true, i will indeed be a happy man.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

dhines said:


> truth it shouldn't be there. if it was, they wouldn't be making the necessary $$ to pay the contract fees with the various leagues they are associated with. I am a subscriber to setanta, direct kick, and of course get gol, fse and fsc via the sports pack. personally what i can hardly wait to see more soccer in HD.
> 
> i am extremely satisfied with the SD options that directv options, with one exception. GIVE ME A CHANCE TO GET ESPN DEPORTES! :sure:
> 
> i must run, the champions league games are about to begin.


The thing is, the movement of a channel happens from time to time. I seem to remember that the Golf channel (whatever it's called) got moved from the Sports Pack to TC Plus. Either way, I get it now. Is it feasible to do this with FSC? No idea. I just don't think it hurts to ask. I understand that DirecTV needs to be careful with that because, even if it is cost-effective to provide it for folks in whatever TC+ is today, there is a possibility that it would cause subscribers of the Sports Pack to realize that it's no longer worth paying the extra money. I understand all that. As for deciding whether or not they would be able to pay the contract fees - that's all part of the feasibility equation that DirecTV would have to determine. Unless someone can show me the financials of this (why it would be non-feasible) I don't know that anyone can make the statement that it's definitely not doable. Don't mean to jump on you, but I keep reading that this isn't workable from a financial perspective - but I don't see any numbers to back that up.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

dhines said:


> are you serious? where did you hear about this? if this is true, i will indeed be a happy man.


Oliver Tse, the guy who stays on top of all soccer broadcasting deals in North America (or at least used to do it until this point, but may move on to something else) broke this news on his website.

Now he's saying there are 2 options. DirecTV Para Todos, as well as ability to as Seleccion en Espan~ol to English language programming.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Chandu said:


> Oliver Tse, the guy who stays on top of all soccer broadcasting deals in North America (or at least used to do it until this point, but may move on to something else) broke this news on his website.
> 
> Now he's saying there are 2 options. DirecTV Para Todos, as well as ability to as Seleccion en Espan~ol to English language programming.


outstanding, looks like i will be adding the 19.99 monthly fee come april 1 y mi esposa will be so happy. additionally i will be watching alot of 'agulias de mexicali' baseball games come november.

damn i am stoked.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

I my self don't watch soccer but would if they handed out guns to the players and lined the field with land mines.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

oldschoolecw said:


> I my self don't watch soccer but would if they handed out guns to the players and lined the field with land mines.


Thanks for that huge contribution to this thread.


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

I like watching soccer...sometimes. Thankfully both me and husband are not interested in sports, just other types of gaming and competition


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> Thanks for that huge contribution to this thread.


He's probably still bitter over the Foxboro Floppo.


----------



## donjuan2007 (Mar 7, 2007)

ESPN Deportes coming to DirecTV on April 1 

March 6, 2007 

DirecTV satellite TV subscribers will be able to receive ESPN Deportes starting April 1 in one of two ways: 

1. By subscribing to any DirecTV Para Todos Spanish/English core programming package, or 

2. By adding the optional Selecccion en Espanol Spanish-language programming tier for an additional $19.99 each month to a DirecTV English-language core programming package. 

ESPN Deportes currently offers 89 UEFA Champions League matches each season and will have all 31 matches of Euro 2008.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

mx6bfast said:


> Thanks for that huge contribution to this thread.


Always glad to contribute when asked. 

And here is how I would vote in favor of such a channel.

If it also showed Australian rules Football, Rugby, and Cricket.

It can't be just Soccer.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Well I'll be completely honest and say I HATE soccer, but I do like to see people get the programming they want  Now will some of you contact D to help me get the programming I want--The Tennis Channel :beatdeadhorse:


----------

