# The official Pac-12 discussion thread



## Stuart Sweet

This is the right place to discuss Pac-12 to your heart's content. 

However, rudeness and questioning moderation are still not allowed.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Stuart Sweet said:


> This is the right place to discuss Pac-12 to your heart's content.
> 
> However, rudeness and questioning moderation are still not allowed.


I started to suggest people open a thread here, but decided to leave it up to you guys in charge in case I thought wrong. 

~Alan


----------



## sdk009

I wanted to address the recruiting issue I brought up earlier.
I know personally of three top flight basketball players who went East to go to school because the recruiters told them all of their games will be on National TV (ESPN & CBS)and the PAC-10 (it was the Pac-10 then) games aren't seen in the East. I'm sure it's a little better now, but considering the DirecTV is the country's second largest provider, it still could be an issue.


----------



## Laxguy

Very interesting! I hope there was more allure to the schools that those kids chose beyond TV coverage!


----------



## WazzuCougs

Does anyone know if there will eventually be online streaming available for Dish subscribers?


----------



## kick4fun

WazzuCougs said:


> Does anyone know if there will eventually be online streaming available for Dish subscribers?


I think I read that they hope to have that available in the near future.. GO COUGS


----------



## Carl Spock

Now that it's football season, it bugs me that I know I won't be able to see all of Stanford's games without an agreement with DirecTV. I'm trying to think of a sports bar I know which has Dish. 

I'm still thinking.


----------



## Laxguy

Carl Spock said:


> Now that it's football season, it bugs me that I know I won't be able to see all of Stanford's games without an agreement with DirecTV. I'm trying to think of a sports bar I know which has Dish.
> 
> I'm still thinking.


Don't worry, Carl, miracles can still happen. BTW, didja know that Stanford beat SC?!! And for the fourth time in a row.....


----------



## Carl Spock

Really? When did that happen?



I'm so glad I recorded the game. It will be scary to watch it again. Both teams often looked pretty miserable. In fact, of the four units, the offensive and defensive squads for both teams, only Stanford's defense looked good for most of the game.

But we won! Go Cardinal! Over the years, Stanford has lost so many games by a field goal to those blankity blanks.


----------



## BusterAvis

This whole situation has turned into one big clusterfunk.
Both sides attacking each other publicly.
DirecTV vs. Pac-12.
I could see it become an epic "VS" showdown.
The old "Versus" channel should come back and televise their conversations and public outcries.


----------



## BusterAvis

Also, this is now the 5th different Pac-12 thread we've had in the past few weeks.
So let's hope this stays the official thread.


----------



## Carl Spock

But a new thread is so shiny when it only has a few posts, just like the double wing formation when it was new, developed at Stanford by Pop Warner in the 1920s.

Old, long threads are more like John Elway, coming downstairs from his room at the SAE house, carrying a couple of cases of Busch and yelling, "Let's head for the mountains, boys!"

You don't want that, do you?


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> But a new thread is so shiny when it only has a few posts, just like the double wing formation when it was new, developed at Stanford by Pop Warner in the 1920s.
> 
> Old, long threads are more like John Elway, coming downstairs from his room at the SAE house, carrying a couple of cases of Busch and yelling, "Let's head for the mountains, boys!"
> 
> You don't want that, do you?


better be careful, if you're not discussing PAC12 then it may be reviewed...


----------



## kick4fun

So just a quick poll.... Purely just guesses. If DIRECTV gets the PAC12 Network, when do we expect to see it?


----------



## Carl Spock

kick4fun said:


> better be careful, if you're not discussing PAC12 then it may be reviewed...


 I'm not scared. I have James Lofton and Gene Washington on my side.

I want the PAC 12 network so I could be sure I'd get the Big Game. I rarely see it back in Minnesota. Who cares about Stanford/Cal back here?

I do.


----------



## Eksynyt

kick4fun said:


> So just a quick poll.... Purely just guesses. If DIRECTV gets the PAC12 Network, when do we expect to see it?


I honestly don't think it will ever be on DirecTV.


----------



## Michael H..

The UCLA Bruin in ME chiming in again...

So far, as a DirecTV subscriber on the Ice-Foundland peninsula, with no PAC12 Network,
I got to see the 1st week PAC12 football inter-conference games of significance (upsets):
WISC @ OSU
OKST @ UA
and of course NEB @ UCLA.
I got to see the 2nd week conference marquee matchup
USC @ STAN
and now will get to watch the women's volleyball #1 UCLA @ #2 USC matchup on ESPNU.

I have in addition to all the local/affiliate networks and subchannels via OTA, I have both LA & NY DNS for all ABC/CBS/CW/FOX/NBC/PBS and Premiere so I get all of the ESPN's and 600 regionals.
The LA DNS picks up west coast regional matchups, filling in a lot of PAC12 matchups which I normally would not get on my local or the east coast DNS. (I usually end up with 3X the selections the non-DNS has).

So a significant number of the revenue (FB & BB) *AND* the non-revenue'rs (Womens VB) look like they'll make their way from the PAC12 network suite onto the national stage.
I watch a wide range of NCAA sports, but almost exclusively matchups of national importance only.
I don't watch soccer, but I watched every World Cup and Olympic match I could.

I'll catch a lacrosse game... if Johns Hopkins is playing Duke for example.
I'll catch women's softball... if UCLA is playing UA, and women's water polo if STAN is playing UCB.
Women's VB is one of the offerings of the PAC12 network, which was going to set it apart... that all of these traditionally non-televised sports were going to be available, all season games for all conference schools... but you'd be out of luck if you didn't have the PAC12 network(s).
Sure looks to me like the PAC12 is shooting itself in the foot.
If the PAC12 intends to sell off any high profile sport/matchup to the highest bidder, then I'm seeing a rapidly diminishing reason for me to even care if a deal ever gets done.
And even if it did, whether I'd see the value of it to me given my personal viewing preferences.
Certainly if there is any premium cost associated with it... even as little as $5 per month, if I would be inclined to pick it up.

I've officially migrated to the "PAC12... Who cares?" camp, until I see evidence down the road to the contrary...


----------



## ajc68

http://pac-12.com/portals/0/content/enterprises/dearfan/120918.html


----------



## kick4fun

ajc68 said:


> http://pac-12.com/portals/0/content/enterprises/dearfan/120918.html


This is just ridiculous. I'm still in a Directv contract, but I keep hearing from those who have switched to DISH that they love it.. Also, last night they opened up Volleyball channels on the DISH in HD. WOW. I'd be real curious to see what the 3rd Qtr earnings are for Directv..


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> This is just ridiculous. I'm still in a Directv contract, but I keep hearing from those who have switched to DISH that they love it.. Also, last night they opened up Volleyball channels on the DISH in HD. WOW. I'd be real curious to see what the 3rd Qtr earnings are for Directv..


As usual, they'll be stronger than Dish Network's. The lack of PAC-12 will have very little impact, if any at all. Consider how many customers out of 20 million might be true PAC-12 fans, then consider how many of those people are under a commitment, and finally consider how many of those folks would pay an ETF for this or are out of contract and would leave. The pool of potential defectors just keeps getting smaller. Some churn occurs when a major network is dropped. This may not even register.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> As usual, they'll be stronger than Dish Network's. The lack of PAC-12 will have very little impact, if any at all. Consider how many customers out of 20 million might be true PAC-12 fans, then consider how many of those people are under a commitment, and finally consider how many of those folks would pay an ETF for this or are out of contract and would leave. The pool of potential defectors just keeps getting smaller. Some churn occurs when a major network is dropped. This may not even register.


Maybe with the people who really don't care for Pac12, but for me along with quite a few people on the west coast or those with PAC12 affiliation, this is a big deal.. I keep reading how people are impressed with the Hopper as well.

But just like people are leaving Directv for Pac12, others are leaving Dish because of AMC.. Instead of speculating, I think it would be interesting to see the 3rd quarter results.. To answer your point about cancel fees, I did the math.. I can easily pay for the 1 year left within 3 months of new contract with DISH. I'm sure you're right that PAC12 doesn't resonate with all 20 million subs, but the West coast is big enough for a sizable dent of defectors.

BTW, I'm not jumping ship yet, but I do keep thinking about it.. I wonder how much longer it takes me to finally persuade the family to take a different direction.


----------



## Carl Spock

Nothing is more vicious than a lover's spat. That's all we've got going here.

I'm looking forward to the make-up sex.


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> Nothing is more vicious than a lover's spat. That's all we've got going here.
> 
> I'm looking forward to the make-up sex.


You are absolutely right...


----------



## sdk009

Well since this thread has been relegated to the back bench, I'll post this link here:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...tv-non-update-and-the-leagues-letter-to-fans/

San Jose Merc's blogger Jon Wilner's weekly update as to the status of the PAC-12 Net on D*. It includes a letter from the PAC-12 to us, the D* subs, and it isn't encouraging.


----------



## Mariah2014

It only goes to prove that if you want pac 12 sports beyond the national networks you will be waiting awhile if you only have Directv.


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> It only goes to prove that if you want pac 12 sports beyond the national networks you will be waiting awhile if you only have Directv.


Or you have a relative or friend (Like I do) who gives you their cable password to watch streaming.. That happened a couple of weeks ago, I streamed my laptop to the tv and we had a viewing party.. It looked pretty good, only once every quarter i had to refresh.. Not really a big deal.


----------



## Mariah2014

Other places stream too, but not nearly as good of a quality as that which comes from league and funny thing is those who are doing that have been using the online feed to do it from too.


kick4fun said:


> Or you have a relative or friend (Like I do) who gives you their cable password to watch streaming.. That happened a couple of weeks ago, I streamed my laptop to the tv and we had a viewing party.. It looked pretty good, only once every quarter i had to refresh.. Not really a big deal.


----------



## Laxguy

I've concluded that Larry Scott is dishonest when it comes to dealing with media over carriage of Pac-12 network. Lies, lies, lies.


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> I've concluded that Larry Scott is a complete dick. Lies, lies, lies.


I disagree and think Mike White is full of it


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> I've concluded that Larry Scott is a complete dick. Lies, lies, lies.


He has seemingly made the Pac12 relevant with the contracts he got through ESPN and such.. Each school gets $30 Million a year, that's without DISH, Comcast and others. ..

Am I mad that the Directv thing didn't work out, you bet. Overall a much better commissioner than our previous one. Without his work, the Pac10 would not have expanded to 12 and WSU along with some of the other schools would not even be on the same page as the Bigger Pac12 schools like USC etc...

Not sure why name calling is necessary.


----------



## sum_random_dork

kick4fun said:


> He has seemingly made the Pac12 relevant with the contracts he got through ESPN and such.. Each school gets $30 Million a year, that's without DISH, Comcast and others. ..
> 
> Am I mad that the Directv thing didn't work out, you bet. Overall a much better commissioner than our previous one. Without his work, the Pac10 would not have expanded to 12 and WSU along with some of the other schools would not even be on the same page as the Bigger Pac12 schools like USC etc...
> 
> Not sure why name calling is necessary.


Agree with you 100%. I give him major credit for being out front and talking at games and answering questions.


----------



## Laxguy

Right you are. Name calling not cool here; my bad. Edited post.


----------



## sum_random_dork

Laxguy said:


> I've concluded that Larry Scott is dishonest when it comes to dealing with media over carriage of Pac-12 network. Lies, lies, lies.


What makes you think that I am curious? I read all the quotes from Saturday at the Stanford/USC game and he said then he didn't think a deal wtih D* would be worked out but was overall happy with their deals in place with Dish, TWC, Comcast etc.

There is blame to be laid at both sides, but much of the initial info that came out about what games would be on what networks wasn't The Pac12's fault it was from websites that had speculated what games would end up where. What they didn't take into account was the deal the Pac12 had worked out with its partners. That deal allowed Pac 12 networks to hold back a certain # of games to be on their own channel. A deal that was different from what the Big10 had set up with ESPN.


----------



## boukengreen

i hope direct eventually gets it cause i would like to see some oregon st stuff but its not a deal breaker for me that will come in a couple of years wen the sec network is launced but will still watch pac-12 for wrestling as the sec doesn't sponsor it


----------



## sigma1914

sum_random_dork said:


> ...
> 
> There is blame to be laid at both sides, but much of the initial info that came out about what games would be on what networks wasn't The Pac12's fault it was from websites that had speculated what games would end up where. What they didn't take into account was the deal the Pac12 had worked out with its partners. That deal allowed Pac 12 networks to hold back a certain # of games to be on their own channel. A deal that was different from what the Big10 had set up with ESPN.


You & others keep saying the list is wrong, but it's been right each week. I think the games are set, and Fox will keep getting the big games.


----------



## Laxguy

sum_random_dork said:


> What makes you think that I am curious?


I don't believe I've said that, or inferred that.


----------



## sum_random_dork

sigma1914 said:


> You & others keep saying the list is wrong, but it's been right each week. I think the games are set, and Fox will keep getting the big games.


No the list wasn't correct, DirecTV used a list of games from a fan website. Once the games were proven to be wrong they went back and changed what they had up on the website (a Pac 12 source confirmed they had the wrong games). As we move on in the season the windows for which games will be picked vary. Each network was able to pick games at the begining of the year they wanted, those games would mostly be at the begining of the season. The Pac 12 also have two weeks where they get the #1 pick of games (those that were not "drafted" before the season started). Obviously before the season UCLA was not that highly thought of, now those games are a bigger draw. Matt Sarz had it broken down the best a few weeks back and explained the whole "draft/game pick" procedure.

I can't find the tweet at the momment that came out stating the original game list that was credited to FOX wasn't corrrect in regards to Pac 12 games.


----------



## sigma1914

sum_random_dork said:


> No the list wasn't correct, DirecTV used a list of games from a fan website. Once the games were proven to be wrong they went back and changed what they had up on the website (a Pac 12 source confirmed they had the wrong games). As we move on in the season the windows for which games will be picked vary. Each network was able to pick games at the begining of the year they wanted, those games would mostly be at the begining of the season. The Pac 12 also have two weeks where they get the #1 pick of games (those that were not "drafted" before the season started). Obviously before the season UCLA was not that highly thought of, now those games are a bigger draw. Matt Sarz had it broken down the best a few weeks back and explained the whole "draft/game pick" procedure.
> 
> I can't find the tweet at the momment that came out stating the original game list that was credited to FOX wasn't corrrect in regards to Pac 12 games.


Are we talking about the same list? The Fox schedule?


----------



## Carl Spock

sigma, thanks for the .pdf...I think.

Big Game is on Oct. 20? 

What's going on with that? 

It has always been like all big rivalry games - Michigan vs. Ohio St, Harvard vs. Yale, Army vs. Navy - which are at the end of the season. 

Stanford vs. Cal should be, too.


----------



## sum_random_dork

Carl Spock said:


> sigma, thanks for the .pdf...I think.
> 
> Big Game is on Oct. 20?
> 
> What's going on with that?
> 
> It has always been like all big rivalry games - Michigan vs. Ohio St, Harvard vs. Yale, Army vs. Navy - which are at the end of the season.
> 
> Stanford vs. Cal should be, too.


Yes, Carl the "Big Game" was moved this year to work out all the schedules. Next year they are saying it will move back to the end of the season and another rivalry game will be moved up earlier in the season. It was part of working out the schedule for 12 schools.


----------



## sum_random_dork

sigma1914 said:


> Are we talking about the same list? The Fox schedule?


Sigma it was a different list, one that came out on a fan website listing games and times. It was quickly removed after it was shown to be wrong. From what I understand, it was "Fox's dream" list of games they'd want to boardcast if everything fell into place. But, it wasn't games that were actually on the schedule with networks attached they were "TBA" games with no network or time. It wasn't a list that came from FOX or another media partner.


----------



## sigma1914

sum_random_dork said:


> Sigma it was a different list, one that came out on a fan website listing games and times. It was quickly removed after it was shown to be wrong. From what I understand, it was "Fox's dream" list of games they'd want to boardcast if everything fell into place. But, it wasn't games that were actually on the schedule with networks attached they were "TBA" games with no network or time. It wasn't a list that came from FOX or another media partner.


Ahh ok, did you see the pdf I attached?


----------



## sum_random_dork

"sigma1914" said:


> Ahh ok, did you see the pdf I attached?


Yes I did and from I saw that looks correct, the issue was the other one being cited was not an official FOX one.


----------



## sdk009

Here's D*'s latest try at offering excuses as to why there's no PAC-12 Net on its system.
One line gets me: "Our goal is to provide Pac-12 Network to anyone who wants it."
Well I want it, so where is it?

http://support.directv.com/app/answ...sion/L3RpbWUvMTM0ODA5NDY1NS9zaWQvSHZUTWJHNmw=

All this homemade Q&A covers is football. How about when basketball season starts and we can't see up to 150 games?


----------



## RAD

sdk009 said:


> Here's D*'s latest try at offering excuses as to why there's no PAC-12 Net on its system.
> One line gets me: "Our goal is to provide Pac-12 Network to anyone who wants it."
> Well I want it, so where is it?
> 
> http://support.directv.com/app/answ...sion/L3RpbWUvMTM0ODA5NDY1NS9zaWQvSHZUTWJHNmw=
> 
> All this homemade Q&A covers is football. How about when basketball season starts and we can't see up to 150 games?


Based on this line:


> We don't want to add any unnecessary costs for those customers who may not have as strong an interest in Pac-12 Network.


sounds like DIRECTV wants to make it ala cart or a RSN just in the Pac-12 area. That's fine with me since I'd be one of ths customers that have zero interest in Pac-12 and don't want any additional unnecessary costs on my monthly bill. Just like you probably don't give a darn about the Longhorn network and don't want to pay anything extra on your bill if they carried it.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sdk009" said:


> Here's D*'s latest try at offering excuses as to why there's no PAC-12 Net on its system.
> One line gets me: "Our goal is to provide Pac-12 Network to anyone who wants it."
> Well I want it, so where is it?
> 
> http://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3912/session/L3RpbWUvMTM0ODA5NDY1NS9zaWQvSHZUTWJHNmw=
> 
> All this homemade Q&A covers is football. How about when basketball season statrts and we can't see up to 150 games?


If you want the PAC-12 network, then you should ask them to make a better offer to DirecTV. It would also go a long way if the network would stop lying about their previous offer. They are the ones missing out on 20 million potential viewers and the revenue that comes with them. When your marquee match-ups dry up only three weeks into the season...it doesn't help your product value.


----------



## kick4fun

sdk009 said:


> Here's D*'s latest try at offering excuses as to why there's no PAC-12 Net on its system.
> One line gets me: "Our goal is to provide Pac-12 Network to anyone who wants it."
> Well I want it, so where is it?
> 
> http://support.directv.com/app/answ...sion/L3RpbWUvMTM0ODA5NDY1NS9zaWQvSHZUTWJHNmw=
> 
> All this homemade Q&A covers is football. How about when basketball season starts and we can't see up to 150 games?


It is BS.. I like how they said, "None of the games on the Pac-12 Network schedule feature any nationally ranked opponents based on either the current Associated Press or USA Today Coaches' Poll."

Really??? http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings
Shows USC is ranked 13.. That's just this week.

Larry Scott said it best, "DirecTV's claim that the games on the Pac-12 Network are not of interest is absurd. In college football, every game is a big game - something we'd all expect the leader in sports to understand, particularly when it offers its customers Big Ten Network, CBS Sports Network and many regional sports networks. While we admire our Rose Bowl brethren at the Big Ten, why shouldn't Pac-12 fans and alums be insulted by DirecTV's decision to trivialize the games that matter to them? Just like those Big Ten fans, we want to see every game our teams play."


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> If you want the PAC-12 network, then you should ask them to make a better offer to DirecTV. It would also go a long way if the network would stop lying about their previous offer. They are the ones missing out on 20 million potential viewers and the revenue that comes with them. When your marquee match-ups dry up only three weeks into the season...it doesn't help your product value.


LYING?? Really? why then explain to us please the LIES that Larry Scott said.. I want to hear actual proof of the transcripts that occurred between PAC12 and Directv...


----------



## kick4fun

RAD said:


> Based on this line:
> 
> sounds like DIRECTV wants to make it ala cart or a RSN just in the Pac-12 area. That's fine with me since I'd be one of ths customers that have zero interest in Pac-12 and don't want any additional unnecessary costs on my monthly bill. Just like you probably don't give a darn about the Longhorn network and don't want to pay anything extra on your bill if they carried it.


I'd take the Longhorn deal too, even though I think UT should have joined the PAC16.  It's about adding sports, not denying us. If we have to get Big10 on the basic channels, then I want PAC12 too.


----------



## Carl Spock

Hey, guys. One man's lying is another man's telling the truth.

And people are always accused of lying in tough negotiations.

I'd hate to see thread #6 on this topic have to be started before the end of the week.


----------



## Hoosier205

kick4fun said:


> LYING?? Really? why then explain to us please the LIES that Larry Scott said.. I want to hear actual proof of the transcripts that occurred between PAC12 and Directv...


First the offers were the same. Then the Dish deal included exclusives. Now they say the deals were, "fundamentally similar."



> The deal we've offered DirecTV is fundamentally similar to the deal that has already been accepted by DISH
> 
> http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/9/20/3362380/pac-12-networks-directv-tv





> Scott said that DirecTV has been "offered the same deal that Dish has been offered, so no doubt it's a fair deal. Dish thought so, and 40 cable companies thought so, so I hope they listen to their customers the same way the others have.
> 
> http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_21501541/pac-12-networks-reach-deal-satellite-provider-dish


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> It is BS.. I like how they said, "None of the games on the Pac-12 Network schedule feature any nationally ranked opponents based on either the current Associated Press or USA Today Coaches' Poll."
> 
> Really??? http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings
> Shows USC is ranked 13.. That's just this week.
> ...


That says opponents, meaning both ranked.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> First the offers were the same. Then the Dish deal included exclusives. Now they say the deals were, "fundamentally similar."


Oh ya, BIG and HUGE Lies.. Larry Scott should be ashamed.. In fact, now he should give it away for free because Directv deserves it..


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> That says opponents, meaning both ranked.


First.. :icon_lame

2nd, but then they show these games on the Big10 network.. HMM.

Central Michigan at Iowa
UAB at Ohio State(16)
Eastern Michigan at Michigan State(21)
Idaho State at Nebraska(25)
South Dakota at Northwestern
Louisiana Tech at Illinois
Syracuse at Minnesota

I said it was BS to make the claims they only want to show RANKED TEAMS, but they deny the Pac12 and put this up?


----------



## Hoosier205

kick4fun said:


> Oh ya, BIG and HUGE Lies.. Larry Scott should be ashamed.. In fact, now he should give it away for free because Directv deserves it..


No, he should offer a fair deal for his product. His bargaining power falls off substantially after this weekend. The network is the side missing the potential revenue, not DirecTV. If a PAC-12 fan really wants their network, they can choose to switch to a different provider.

The PAC-12 Network is missing out on the revenue from 20 million potential viewers. DirecTV *only *loses revenue from those customers who leave over not having a lone, very specialized, and unestablished network. The math becomes pretty simple. Either the PAC-12 Network needs to make an offer to DirecTV with rates that make sense or they must prove their value. That haven't done either.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> No, he should offer a fair deal for his product. His bargaining power falls off substantially after this weekend. The network is the side missing the potential revenue, not DirecTV. If a PAC-12 fan really wants their network, they can choose to switch to a different provider.
> 
> The PAC-12 Network is missing out on the revenue from 20 million potential viewers. DirecTV *only *loses revenue from those customers who leave over not having a lone, very specialized, and unestablished network. The math becomes pretty simple. Either the PAC-12 Network needs to offer DirecTV with rates that make sense or they must prove their value. That haven't done either.


I agree not having the network on Directv is missed a missed opportunity, but Larry Scott says this.... 
"In an ideal world, if I could've scripted it, you'd have all of them, but from what I'm told that never really happens when you're launching a network. If you look where we are, three weeks into it, I think we've got over 40 agreements, four out of the top five distributors between Time Warner, Comcast, Cox and now Dish. I think it's probably on par if not better than any other launch that's ever taken place. It ranks up there in terms of early success for any network. These things take time with all distributors, and we're hopeful that the distributors that don't have it not only see the quality of games we have on, the quality of the content, but also are responsive to their fans and their customers in the same way Dish and other cable companies have been. We're confident that those who don't have it, their customers will be responsive to the customers, the fans."

That being said it's not a do or die deal if they don't agree quite yet or even this year.. I guess it takes time..
Also, I'm not jumping ship yet, I get the Pac12 Networks for free right now.. Best of both worlds, I got the Sunday Ticket and Redzone for a total of $80 plus I can stream all Pac12 Networks via Laptop to the TV.. It looks great and wish everyone could see what I'm seeing in terms of Pac12 network coverage..


----------



## RAD

"kick4fun" said:


> I'd take the Longhorn deal too, even though I think UT should have joined the PAC16.  It's about adding sports, not denying us. If we have to get Big10 on the basic channels, then I want PAC12 too.


It's about adding things at a price customers would be willing to pay. He'll, come February there will be tons of posts here because the bill for service will go up $3 to $4 per month. I for one don't want to see my bill go up $7 or $8 per month because RSN's got added, IMHO RSN's need to go ala cart.


----------



## Hoosier205

kick4fun said:


> I agree not having the network on Directv is missed a missed opportunity, but Larry Scott says this....
> "In an ideal world, if I could've scripted it, you'd have all of them, but from what I'm told that never really happens when you're launching a network. If you look where we are, three weeks into it, I think we've got over 40 agreements, four out of the top five distributors between Time Warner, Comcast, Cox and now Dish. I think it's probably on par if not better than any other launch that's ever taken place. It ranks up there in terms of early success for any network. These things take time with all distributors, and we're hopeful that the distributors that don't have it not only see the quality of games we have on, the quality of the content, but also are responsive to their fans and their customers in the same way Dish and other cable companies have been. We're confident that those who don't have it, their customers will be responsive to the customers, the fans."
> 
> That being said it's not a do or die deal if they don't agree quite yet or even this year.. I guess it takes time..


Those deals he gloats about not for national distribution, with the exception of Dish Network. Some of them are for small cable systems and others are limited to specific locations/systems within the larger cable operators. Small potatoes compared to DirecTV.

Also...


> "In an ideal world, if I could've scripted it, you'd have all of them, but from what I'm told that never really happens when you're launching a network."


Wow...maybe this guy should stick to typical conference business and allow someone else to speak on behalf of the network if he isn't aware of something so simple.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> No, he should offer a fair deal for his product. His bargaining power falls off substantially after this weekend. The network is the side missing the potential revenue, not DirecTV. If a PAC-12 fan really wants their network, they can choose to switch to a different provider.
> 
> The PAC-12 Network is missing out on the revenue from 20 million potential viewers. DirecTV *only *loses revenue from those customers who leave over not having a lone, very specialized, and unestablished network. The math becomes pretty simple. Either the PAC-12 Network needs to make an offer to DirecTV with rates that make sense or they must prove their value. That haven't done either.


The Pac 12 is offering a fair deal. At least the same approximate deal they have offered all providers. If the Pac 12 took the Directv offer they would lose a lot of money when it came time came to renegotiate the other 40+ providers they have existinng contracts with.

What about the Big 10 Network, ESPN multiple channels, all the sports league channels and even most of the regular entertainment channels that could be in their own tiers. I don't blame Directv for not carrying the Pac 12 Network but probably there is no way it gets put in the RSN tier. It would just cost the Pac 12 Network to much money in the furture and a lot of unhappy providers and even some Directv customers. I would gladly pay for the sports package or the Pac 12 Network's own package but it won't happen.


----------



## kick4fun

RAD said:


> It's about adding things at a price customers would be willing to pay. He'll, come February there will be tons of posts here because the bill for service will go up $3 to $4 per month. I for one don't want to see my bill go up $7 or $8 per month because RSN's got added, IMHO RSN's need to go ala cart.


I totally agree.. If Directv decides to move the Big10 to the Sports Pack (probably can't because of BIG10 contract) and then add Pac12 along with all other sports into a sports tier, I think that's more than fair.. I would more than pay for that!


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> The Pac 12 is offering a fair deal.


Proof?



donm said:


> At least the same approximate deal they have offered all providers.


That is false. Like I said - first they claimed it was the same offer, then we learned of the exclusives to Dish, and now they say they are fundamentally the same. More falsehoods from a commissioner who is a fish out of water in a retrans negotiation and has backed himself into a corner with a network losing product value only a few weeks into the season. A tiny portion of people may leave DirecTV over this, but not enough to force DirecTV into a bad deal.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> Proof?
> 
> That is false. Like I said - first they claimed it was the same offer, then we learned of the exclusives to Dish, and now they say they are fundamentally the same. More falsehoods from a commissioner who is a fish out of water in a retrans negotiation and has backed himself into a corner with a network losing product value only a few weeks into the season.


You give me proof they are not! If you read what Directv has been saying it is wanting to put the Pac 12 Network in it's own or the RSN tier. That is what they are saying is unreasonable not that the Pac 12 is trying to charge them more then anybody else. This is also what the Pac 12 has been saying. Of coarse all deals are a little different but very close. The Dish exclusive signage probably could have been Directv if they wanted and had sign with the Pac 12 first.

Also if the Pac 12 Network went in the sports package they wouldn't have 20 million customers. Maybe 1 million if that much. I actually would like to see all sports go to their own package or allow to purchase only the channels you would want but the providers won't let that happen


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> Proof?
> 
> That is false. Like I said - first they claimed it was the same offer, then we learned of the exclusives to Dish, and now they say they are fundamentally the same. More falsehoods from a commissioner who is a fish out of water in a retrans negotiation and has backed himself into a corner with a network losing product value only a few weeks into the season. A tiny portion of people may leave DirecTV over this, but not enough to force DirecTV into a bad deal.


And here we go again.. Back and forth over who's giving who the better deal.. How do we know that Direct wasn't offered the exclusives 1st.. Maybe they gambled and took a pass, but then Dish came up and bought into it. Now the deal is "MAYBE SIMILAR". Just a guess. I wouldn't presume to call either team a liar, but I called BS on Directv saying they were only showing "Ranked Opponents" when in fact they are not with the BIG10 channels this weekend..

That same Commissioner who "is a fish out of water", successfully expanded the Pac10 to 12 teams, negotiated a huge contract with ESPN and Fox to grant each school $30 million a YEAR, and got Dish and 4 of the largest cable companies in the country and more than 40 others, one of which is the LARGEST --- Comcast. So, is this guy a fish out of water? The Jury is out!


----------



## donm

kick4fun said:


> And here we go again.. Back and forth over who's giving who the better deal.. How do we know that Direct wasn't offered the exclusives 1st.. Maybe they gambled and took a pass, but then Dish came up and bought into it. Now the deal is "MAYBE SIMILAR". Just a guess. I wouldn't presume to call either team a liar, but I called BS on Directv saying they were only showing "Ranked Opponents" when in fact they are not with the BIG10 channels this weekend..
> 
> That same Commissioner who "is a fish out of water", successfully expanded the Pac10 to 12 teams, negotiated a huge contract with ESPN and Fox to grant each school $30 million a YEAR, and got 4 out of 5 carriers to bring Pac12 Networks to their programming, one of which is the LARGEST --- Comcast. So, is this guy a fish out of water? The Jury is out!


The jury is not out IMO. Scott is the best conference commissioner in all college.


----------



## kick4fun

donm said:


> The jury is not out IMO. Scott is the best conference commissioner in all college.


THANK YOU!


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> You give me proof they are not!


...if it were a fair deal, there would be a deal.  A fair deal implies that it is something both sides can agree upon.



donm said:


> I actually would like to see all sports go to their own package or allow to purchase only the channels you would want but the providers won't let that happen


The providers? No, it's the content owners. Purchasing only the channels you want gets complicated when it becomes far more expensive and the channels you want disappear after a substantial loss of revenue. It's a la carte. It doesn't work.


----------



## Hoosier205

kick4fun said:


> I wouldn't presume to call either team a liar, but I called BS on Directv saying they were only showing "Ranked Opponents" when in fact they are not with the BIG10 channels this weekend..


Haha! :lol: How is it "BS" to use the PAC-12 Network's own broadcast schedule to show that they are quickly running out of marquee match-ups?

P.S. - The Big 10 Network already has a deal. This is about the PAC-12 Network not getting one done.



kick4fun said:


> That same Commissioner who "is a fish out of water", successfully expanded the Pac10 to 12 teams, negotiated a huge contract with ESPN and Fox to grant each school $30 million a YEAR, *and got Dish and 4 of the largest cable companies in the country and more than 40 others*, one of which is the LARGEST --- Comcast. So, is this guy a fish out of water? The Jury is out!


Once again, not a single one of those cable providers are national providers. Also, many of those cable companies are either smaller, regional providers or are only offering the PAC-12 Network in specific systems within their overall footprint. DirecTV is the big ticket. It's one of only two national television service providers and easily dominates the other.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> ...if it were a fair deal, there would be a deal.  A fair deal implies that it is something both sides can agree upon.
> 
> The providers? No, it's the content owners. Purchasing only the channels you want gets complicated when it becomes far more expensive and the channels you want disappear after a substantial loss of revenue. It's a la carte. It doesn't work.


Your right I meant content owners. Sorry!

OK not necessarily a fair deal but a similar deal that over 40+ providers already thought was a fair deal for them. It might not be in Directv's opinion though. I'm sure right now it is as close to a best deal that the Pac 12 can offer. If Directv doesn't want to do it both will move on. There is about 2-3 other providers the Pac 12 needs and then they can go without Directv. They are making 20-30 million per team from just Fox and ESPN and will be more from the other 40+ providers. It would be really nice to get Directv and there almost 20 million customers but not if they are going to lose money on the other 60+ million from other providers.


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> Your right I meant content owners. Sorry!
> 
> OK not necessarily a fair deal but a similar deal that over 40+ providers already thought was a fair deal for them. It might not be in Directv's opinion though. I'm sure right now it is as close to a best deal that the Pac 12 can offer. If Directv doesn't want to do it both will move on. There is about 2-3 other providers the Pac 12 needs and then they can go without Directv. They are making 20-30 million per team from just Fox and ESPN and will be more from the other 40+ providers. It would be really nice to get Directv and there almost 20 million customers but not if they are going to lose money on the other 60+ million from other providers.


At the end of the day, only the PAC-12 loses if there isn't a deal with DirecTV. It won't even be a blip on the radar for DirecTV. A fraction of a single percentage point will jump ship. The PAC-12 misses out of far more revenue than DirecTV risks losing in churn. The PAC-12 wants to charge big time network fees that they haven't earned. Good for them that they got the Dish deal. Dish is known for its missteps, so that isn't surprising.


----------



## Carl Spock

donm said:


> I'm sure right now it is as close to a best deal that the Pac 12 can offer. If Directv doesn't want to do it both will move on.


 Why do you think it's the PAC 12's best offer?

This early in the negotiations, I wouldn't expect either side to be at or near their bottom line. Those positions usually take months to get to.


----------



## donm

Carl Spock said:


> Why do you think it's the PAC 12's best offer?
> 
> This early in the negotiations, I wouldn't expect either side to be at or near their bottom line. Those positions usually take months to get to.


They have been negotiating for over a year. The Pac 12 is close to their best deal IMO because they can't go to much better or cause problems with their existing providers. I'm sure there are small things both sides could change but with what looks like Directv wanting the Pac 12 Network to be a RSN or their own package just makes it almost impossible.


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> I'm sure there are small things both sides could change but with *what looks like Directv wanting the Pac 12 Network to be a RSN or their own package just makes it almost impossible.*


Link? Source?


----------



## Carl Spock

donm said:


> They have been negotiating for over a year.


When did the other service providers settle? If you were dealing with me, that's when I'd start real negotiations.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> At the end of the day, only the PAC-12 loses if there isn't a deal with DirecTV. It won't even be a blip on the radar for DirecTV. A fraction of a single percentage point will jump ship. The PAC-12 misses out of far more revenue than DirecTV risks losing in churn. The PAC-12 wants to charge big time network fees that they haven't earned. Good for them that they got the Dish deal. Dish is known for its missteps, so that isn't surprising.


I think it is more then a blip for Directv. I think Directv right now is more worried then the Pac 12 about this agreement. Every time I call Directv they give me something else free without even asking for it. Free HBO, Showtime, money off my bill twice etc. They have emailed me 2-3 times with trying to keep me from dropping Directv.

If you think going in their own package or RSN is going to lose the Pac 12 a lot of money your fooling yourself. They would lose a lot more by doing that. Pac 12 wants to charge what the market will bare and over 40+ providers agreed. Dish is known for some missteps but are a hard group to get a deal done especially sports. You see Dish is dropping the Big 10 at the same time it signed the Pac 12. Maybe the Pac 12 Network is a better deal.


----------



## donm

Carl Spock said:


> When did the other service providers settle? If you were dealing with me, that's when I'd start real negotiations.


The first 4-5 settled a year ago and more as the year went along.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> Link? Source?


Read the Directv and Pac 12 info posted to many sites. You can read that if you look at what both sides are saying.


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> First.. :icon_lame
> 
> 2nd, but then they show these games on the Big10 network.. HMM.
> 
> Central Michigan at Iowa
> UAB at Ohio State(16)
> Eastern Michigan at Michigan State(21)
> Idaho State at Nebraska(25)
> South Dakota at Northwestern
> Louisiana Tech at Illinois
> Syracuse at Minnesota
> 
> I said it was BS to make the claims they only want to show RANKED TEAMS, but they deny the Pac12 and put this up?


Claim it's lame all you want, it's the truth. The Pac12 Network hasn't and will not have in the near future games between ranked opponents (both ranked). That's a big deal because it's a way to show the network doesn't have the big games people watch...devaluing the channel.


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> I think it is more then a blip for Directv. I think Directv right now is more worried then the Pac 12 about this agreement. Every time I call Directv they give me something else free without even asking for it. Free HBO, Showtime, money off my bill twice etc. They have emailed me 2-3 times with trying to keep me from dropping Directv.


You're one customer out of 20 million. The number of people who will or have dropped DirecTV over this issue is miniscule. They will more than make up for anything they dangle to keep you as a customer. DirecTV has absolutely no reason to be worried. The PAC-12 Network doesn't have enough prime content to make any major provider shake in their boots. Their quantity of big time games is limited.


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> Read the Directv and Pac 12 info posted to many sites. You can read that if you look at what both sides are saying.


You're claiming to know what type of placement DirecTV wants for a potential PAC-12 Network. What is that based on?


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> You're one customer out of 20 million. The number of people who will or have dropped DirecTV over this issue is miniscule. They will more than make up for anything they dangle to keep you as a customer. DirecTV has absolutely no reason to be worried. The PAC-12 Network doesn't have enough prime content to make any major provider shake in their boots. Their quantity of big time games is limited.


I think the churn for Directv would be worse but the one thing that will help is Dish dropping the Big 10 Network and people switching from Dish to Directv. There is more college football fans then you think. I'm sure a lot won't switch but a fair amount will now with Dish carry the Pac 12 Network. I don't really care if Directv loses customers or not and would like to see the Pac 12 Network on Directv any way they can get a deal done. I'm willing to pay almost any reasonable amount to get it on Directv but I'm probably in the minority. Directv is my favorite provider and would like to stay if at all possible.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> You're claiming to know what type of placement DirecTV wants for a potential PAC-12 Network. What is that based on?


Same opinion as your statement that the Pac 12 is trying to charge more to Directv then other providers and is and making an unreasonable offer.


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> I don't really care if Directv loses customers or not and would like to see the Pac 12 Network on Directv any way they can get a deal done.


Now we've exposed the issue. Many of us do care, because it matters. DirecTV needs to make a wise business decision, not add the channel in any way possible. Poor business decisions on their part impact us as customers. If I wanted a provider that makes bad decisions that I will have to pay for later...I'd be with Dish.


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> Same opinion as your statement that the Pac 12 is trying to charge more to Directv then other providers and is and making an unreasonable offer.


...no it isn't. Not even close. We KNOW they are not offering identical deals. Do you have anything to back up your claims or not? I provided quotes earlier.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> Now we've exposed the issue. Many of us do care, because it matters. DirecTV needs to make a wise business decision, not add the channel in any way possible. Poor business decisions on their part impact us as customers. If I wanted a provider that makes bad decisions that I will have to pay for later...I'd be with Dish.


I can agree with that! I just don't think it is as bad a deal as you must think it is from Directv's side. I want them to get the best deal possible without leaving their customers without the Pac 12 Network. I just think the way it is appearing right now it will not get done. Trying to get the Pac 12 Network in a RSN or their own package just won't happen IMO.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> ...no it isn't. Not even close. We KNOW they are not offering identical deals. Do you have anything to back up your claims or not? I provided quotes earlier.


Nobody knows for sure but the Pac 12 came out and said they are offering very similar deals. The exact same deal as Dish signed without the exclusive signage which Directv could of probably had if they wanted earlier. I'm sure the Pac 12 Network could give up something similar to Directv if that was the only holdup. Directv doesn't say anything about being offered a higher cost deal then any of the other providers. I'm sure Directv would come out and say we want a deal similar to the other providers but they haven't yet. Also why do you think they would be charging more to Directv (from you opinion) when they are so important for the Pac 12. It would be very dumb to be trying to charge more for something that has been already negotiated for over a year and with 40+ other providers already signed.


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> I just think the way it is appearing right now it will not get done.


I agree. The PAC-12 Network execs missed their best window of opportunity. Men's basketball will be next, but there wasn't a single PAC-12 school in the last poll from the previous season. Only three conference teams were ranked in the top 25 in last year's preseason and they all dropped off the map pretty quickly. So, that doesn't bode well.



donm said:


> Trying to get the Pac 12 Network in a RSN or their own package just won't happen IMO.


Again, when has DirecTV indicated that they want that?


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> Nobody knows for sure but the Pac 12 came out and said they are offering very similar deals.


No, they said the deals were the same. Then they said they were, "fundamentally similar." Sounds trustworthy...


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> I agree. The PAC-12 Network execs missed their best window of opportunity. Men's basketball will be next, but there wasn't a single PAC-12 school in the last poll from the previous season. Only three conference teams were ranked in the top 25 in last year's preseason and they all dropped off the map pretty quickly. So, that doesn't bode well.
> 
> Again, when has DirecTV indicated that they want that?


I have to agree with the Pac 12 not being a very good basketball conference for the last few years. I think after the football season is over it makes it very hard to get a deal until next football season. I'm not sure it was the Pac 12 execs messing up. Sometimes it is better to not make a deal then a bad deal and that is on both Directv and Pac 12 Networks side.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> No, they said the deals were the same. Then they said they were, "fundamentally similar." Sounds trustworthy...


Sounds trustworthy to me. You are just looking to see how the Pac 12 is lying or trying to charge more to Directv when there is no proof that is the case.


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> I have to agree with the Pac 12 not being a very good basketball conference for the last few years. I think after the football season is over it makes it very hard to get a deal until next football season. I'm not sure it was the Pac 12 execs messing up. Sometimes it is better to not make a deal then a bad deal and that is on both Directv and Pac 12 Networks side.


Forget the end of the football season, I think this weekend is key for the network to get the most they can. After that, I think any deal reached will be more pleasing to DirecTV than it would have been.


----------



## Hoosier205

donm said:


> Sounds trustworthy to me. You are just looking to see how the Pac 12 is lying or trying to charge more to Directv when there is no proof that is the case.


The proof that they were lying is in their own statements. It's right there for anyone to read. Add that to the tacky situation of those taxpayer funded public employees who spoke out on the situation...


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> Forget the end of the football season, I think this weekend is key for the network to get the most they can. After that, I think any deal reached will be more pleasing to DirecTV than it would have been.


Yup, I think you are right. That's why I don't think there will be a deal at all or at best just before next football season. I hope I'm wrong but I can't see how it can get done but I never thought that Dish would sign a Pac 12 Network contract either. I would be one happy guy if something happen and Directv and Pac 12 had a agreement this weekend. You never know and I have seen things happen but I'm just not to optimistic.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> Add that to the tacky situation of those taxpayer funded public employees who spoke out on the situation...


I'm not sure what your talking about.


----------



## DC_SnDvl

Hoosier205 said:


> The proof that they were lying is in their own statements. It's right there for anyone to read. Add that to the tacky situation of those taxpayer funded public employees who spoke out on the situation...


You don't have any proof that either side was lying. We know one is, we will never know who that is.

I am calling tonight to get the cost of Big 10 dropped from my bill based on the latest DTV statement that only people who want it should have to pay for it. They just opened a can of worms with that.


----------



## sdk009

donm said:


> I have to agree with the Pac 12 not being a very good basketball conference for the last few years. I think after the football season is over it makes it very hard to get a deal until next football season. I'm not sure it was the Pac 12 execs messing up. Sometimes it is better to not make a deal then a bad deal and that is on both Directv and Pac 12 Networks side.


Basketball will be on an upswing, as UCLA's 2012 recruiting class was ranked 2nd by Rivals.com and Arizona's was ranked 3rd. 
Add to it the vast amount of basketball programming the channel will carry compared to football, I think it will be even more imperative for the league to make a deal once November rolls around.


----------



## Hoosier205

"DC_SnDvl" said:


> You don't have any proof that either side was lying.


Sure we do. We have the commissioner's own statements.


----------



## donm

sdk009 said:


> Basketball will be on an upswing, as UCLA's 2012 recruiting class was ranked 2nd by Rivals.com and Arizona's was ranked 3rd.
> Add to it the vast amount of basketball programming the channel will carry compared to football, I think it will be even more imperative for the league to make a deal once November rolls around.


I think you are probably right about the future of Pac 12 basketball. I think Utah or Col I forgot which also had a good recruiting class. I do hope the Pac 12 gets back to being a top basketball conference. At one time I thought the Pac 10 was the second best or no worse then third best conference but that was years ago.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> Sure we do. We have the commissioner's own statements.


Are you assuming "the DEAL" has been the same from day one? NO CHANGE?? to go from saying the deal was the same to almost the same to me implies that things may have changed, especially with the advertising in the stadiums..


----------



## kick4fun

PAC12..... The "Conference of Champions," the Pac-12 has won more NCAA National Team Championships than any other conference in history; the three schools with the most NCAA team championships belong to the Pac-12 (UCLA, Stanford and USC, in that order). With Arizona State's softball title in 2011, the conference won its 400th NCAA Championship.


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> PAC12..... The "Conference of Champions," the Pac-12 has won more NCAA National Team Championships than any other conference in history; the three schools with the most NCAA team championships belong to the Pac-12 (UCLA, Stanford and USC, in that order). With Arizona State's softball title in 2011, the conference won its 400th NCAA Championship.


Although impressive, that's not a very fair statistic due to the Pac schools having more sports. Sports like Water Polo aren't played east of the Rockies. Tennis, golf, swimming and diving are also predominately west with collegiate sports. Softball was also a historically west coast sport.

What's odd is after the top 3 Pac schools, little Abilene Christian is 4th with Oklahoma State 5th.


----------



## Carl Spock

donm said:


> The first 4-5 settled a year ago and more as the year went along.


 I'd want to be the last one to settle. The others would establish the maximum price I would have to pay. I'd also look at the terms of everyone else's deal in crafting my own.


----------



## donm

Carl Spock said:


> I'd want to be the last one to settle. The others would establish the maximum price I would have to pay. I'd also look at the terms of everyone else's deal in crafting my own.


Well it's time to settle then. There is only 3-4 providers left to sign including Directv.


----------



## Carl Spock

I'm sure DirecTV cares as little for your advice in negotiating as it does for mine.


----------



## kick4fun

This was the deal in place before in went south.. 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/239430214512422912


----------



## kick4fun

sdk009 said:


> Well since this thread has been relegated to the back bench, I'll post this link here:
> 
> http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...tv-non-update-and-the-leagues-letter-to-fans/
> 
> San Jose Merc's blogger Jon Wilner's weekly update as to the status of the PAC-12 Net on D*. It includes a letter from the PAC-12 to us, the D* subs, and it isn't encouraging.


It's more grim than that.... http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/20/carlisle-pac-12-networks-directtv-cant-reach-a/


----------



## sdk009

kick4fun said:


> It's more grim than that.... http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/20/carlisle-pac-12-networks-directtv-cant-reach-a/


DirecTV's stance is absolutely ridiculous. Why would I want to pay for a stand-alone-package? 
Oceanic Time Warner in Hawaii is including all seven channels in its $5.99 sports pack, offering the main channel in HD and the regional channels in SD.


----------



## kick4fun

sdk009 said:


> DirecTV's stance is absolutely ridiculous. Why would I want to pay for a stand-alone-package?
> Oceanic Time Warner in Hawaii is including all seven channels in its $5.99 sports pack, offering the main channel in HD and the regional channels in SD.


The Directv of old was never like this...


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> The Directv of old was never like this...


Like what? A provider with sound business savvy? Content fees are up across the board. The PAC-12 Network folks are asking for more than DirecTV is willing to pay. They acting like an ESPN when they are simply an unproven upstart with limited content.


----------



## sdk009

Hoosier205 said:


> Like what? A provider with sound business savvy? Content fees are up across the board. The PAC-12 Network folks are asking for more than DirecTV is willing to pay. They acting like an ESPN when they are simply an unproven upstart with limited content.


If that's the case, (which I doubt), then what happened to the $14.99 package that was supposed to get done in August? 
A lot of assumptions have been made, so all we can do is see what the other providers are charging and come to our own conclusion. I hardly think Time Warner could add it to its sports pack without raising the fee, if the PAC-12 was asking an ESPN like fee of $3 a sub.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> Like what? A provider with sound business savvy? Content fees are up across the board. The PAC-12 Network folks are asking for more than DirecTV is willing to pay. They acting like an ESPN when they are simply an unproven upstart with limited content.


Stop being all pro Directv.. They were a sports leader.. When the NFL contract expires, I wonder if you'll be blowing the same horn.. They are not acting like ESPN, but how can they say yes to an ALA CARTE deal? Big10 was unproven and Directv gave them a shot... Why not Pac12?


----------



## Mariah2014

It isn't even stand alone. They want to treat it like time warner does Hawaii games in Hawaii. A ppv type model.


sdk009 said:


> DirecTV's stance is absolutely ridiculous. Why would I want to pay for a stand-alone-package?
> Oceanic Time Warner in Hawaii is including all seven channels in its $5.99 sports pack, offering the main channel in HD and the regional channels in SD.


----------



## sdk009

mshaw2715 said:


> It isn't even stand alone. They want to treat it like time warner does Hawaii games in Hawaii. A ppv type model.


That's even worse. At least you can watch the Rainbow game replay the next day for free.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sdk009" said:


> If that's the case, (which I doubt), then what happened to the $14.99 package that was supposed to get done in August?
> A lot of assumptions have been made, so all we can do is see what the other providers are charging and come to our own conclusion. I hardly think Time Warner could add it to its sports pack without raising the fee, if the PAC-12 was asking an ESPN like fee of $3 a sub.


Where are you getting $14.99 from?


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> Where are you getting $14.99 from?


originally thought to be worked out..

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/239430214512422912


----------



## sdk009

Hoosier205 said:


> Where are you getting $14.99 from?


Here: 
https://twitter.com/PAC12insider/sta...30214512422912


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> Where are you getting $14.99 from?


That was one of they rumors that Directv wanted early in negotiations with the Pac 12 Network. It was from some usual reliable sources. I'm not sure if it was true but the way Directv is acting I wouldn't doubt it. It was rumored a Pac 12 Network package only for $14.99. I knew the Pac 12 wasn't going to go for that. Only the diehard Pac 12 fans like myself would buying that package.


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> Stop being all pro Directv.. They were a sports leader.. When the NFL contract expires, I wonder if you'll be blowing the same horn.


How exactly are they not the sports leader now? This is a single channel. They have an incredible number of sports channels and sports packages compared to every other provider. Sunday Ticket? Not going anywhere.



"kick4fun" said:


> Big10 was unproven and Directv gave them a shot... Why not Pac12?


...after four years of negotiations.


----------



## Hoosier205

"donm" said:


> That was one of they rumors that Directv wanted early in negotiations with the Pac 12 Network. It was from some usual reliable sources. I'm not sure if it was true but the way Directv is acting I wouldn't doubt it. It was rumored a Pac 12 Network package only for $14.99. I knew the Pac 12 wasn't going to go for that. Only the diehard Pac 12 fans like myself would buying that package.


Then that's on the PAC-12 Network for failing to come to terms.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> Then that's on the PAC-12 Network for failing to come to terms.


No it isn't. It is in you bias view that the Pac 12 should take any package that Directv can shove down their ***. Directv is in the wrong and just because you can't or won't see it and keep repeating things that are not true doesn't make Directv right. Like I said before it is Directv right to not carry the Network but it is also the Pac 12 Network right to only accept something that will make money. I'm done posting in this topic. It doesn't do any good going around and around when people don't want to listen or make stuff up.

Best thing for me is if this site would ban me!!!


----------



## Mariah2014

It is starting to look more and more like directv doesn't want to come to terms and that is also what I'm hearing from those affiliated with them too.


Hoosier205 said:


> Then that's on the PAC-12 Network for failing to come to terms.


----------



## Hoosier205

"donm" said:


> No it isn't. It is in you bias view that the Pac 12 should take any package that Directv can shove down their ***. Directv is in the wrong and just because you can't or won't see it and keep repeating things that are not true doesn't make Directv right. Like I said before it is Directv right to not carry the Network but it is also the Pac 12 Network right to only accept something that will make money. I'm done posting in this topic. It doesn't do any good going around and around when people don't want to listen or make stuff up.


Who needs who more?


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> Who needs who more?


Like I said before in a earlier post. I don't know what you are talking about!!


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> Who needs who more?


That will shed led at some point.. I think PAC12 is doing fine... I'm sure they would love to have DIRECTV.

They put their product out there and have quite a few people paying for it... Eventually I believe Directv will come back asking what it might take to have the privilege to show Pac12..


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> It is starting to look more and more like directv doesn't want to come to terms and that is also what I'm hearing from those affiliated with them too.


Playing their own fiddle...


----------



## sigma1914

mshaw2715 said:


> It is starting to look more and more like directv doesn't want to come to terms and that is also what I'm hearing from those affiliated with them too.


Who? A CSR?


----------



## Mariah2014

Not from the csr's.


sigma1914 said:


> Who? A CSR?


----------



## Carl Spock

I would be shocked if anyone who is "affiliated" with DirecTV had any idea of what is going on with the inner details of their negotiations with PAC 12.

We saw a lot of mis-information during the Viacom negotiations, much of it coming from inflammatory Twitter posts made by people who said they were speaking for DirecTV. It was only when these leaks stopped that negotiations got serious and the issue was solved.

If you really have some inside information from DirecTV's upper management, let us know, mshaw2715. Otherwise, you are no different than a fan at a game yelling at the coach from the stands, telling him that was a stupid play he called.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

When you think about all of this its just so damn frustrating. As others have said, you would think the Pac 12 (and TWCSN) would want some money from D* rather then no money at all. Its a shame it all has to come down to greed.

But then again I can't let this get to me, its only TV.


----------



## BusterAvis

DirecTV must be losing more and more subscribers lately.
They just recently offered Pac-12 not one, but "TWO" offers over the past 24 hours, and the Pac-12 conference "rejected" both offers.

The fact DirecTV gave the Pac-12 two offers, tells me that DirecTV does want to make a deal to get the network (because they must be losing more customers with each passing day now) ....

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/20/carlisle-pac-12-networks-directtv-cant-reach-a/


----------



## Hoosier205

"BusterAvis" said:


> DirecTV must be losing more and more subscribers lately.
> They just recently offered Pac-12 not one, but "TWO" offers over the past 24 hours, and the Pac-12 conference "rejected" both offers.
> 
> The fact DirecTV gave the Pac-12 two offers, tells me that DirecTV does want to make a deal to get the network (because they must be losing more customers with each passing day now) ....
> 
> http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/20/carlisle-pac-12-networks-directtv-cant-reach-a/


That article doesn't mention when the offers were made or when they were turned down.


----------



## BusterAvis

Hoosier205 said:


> That article doesn't mention when the offers were made or when they were turned down.


Yes it did, read it again (article was dated 9/20) ....

"DirecTV *said Thursday* it had proposed offering the Pac-12 Network as a stand-alone channel *before this weekend's games* for anyone who wanted to subscribe to it, and also proposed allowing customers to buy future games on an on-demand basis until the situation was worked out, *but that the Pac-12 had rejected both offers*."

"It's regrettable and unfortunate, but Pac-12 keeps denying these few exclusive games to the people who really want them the most," DirecTV said in a statement."

*"The Pac-12 Networks rejected two offers by DirecTV to carry the new channels*, fairly assuring that *Saturday's USC-California game* will not be available on that system."


----------



## kick4fun

BusterAvis said:


> Yes it did, read it again (article was dated 9/20) ....
> 
> "DirecTV *said Thursday* it had proposed offering the Pac-12 Network as a stand-alone channel *before this weekend's games* for anyone who wanted to subscribe to it, and also proposed allowing customers to buy future games on an on-demand basis until the situation was worked out, *but that the Pac-12 had rejected both offers*."
> 
> "It's regrettable and unfortunate, but Pac-12 keeps denying these few exclusive games to the people who really want them the most," DirecTV said in a statement."
> 
> *"The Pac-12 Networks rejected two offers by DirecTV to carry the new channels*, fairly assuring that *Saturday's USC-California game* will not be available on that system."


A little more perspective.....

"Buying games on-demand for the Pac-12? Do they think we're watching boxing matches?

There was no way the Pac-12 was ever going to accept this deal on face value. It basically makes the Pac-12 a pay-per-view package that would isolate it to only the most diehard and wealthy of their uses, and that certainly doesn't run in the line with the same plan the Pac-12 put in the place with the rest of their providers. This was a bone thrown out by DirecTV to provide the apparition of an olive branch, only to be burned by the Pac-12 when they realized it was just a snake."

http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/9/21/3367058/pac-12-network-directv-plan-rejected


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> A little more perspective.....
> 
> "Buying games on-demand for the Pac-12? Do they think we're watching boxing matches?
> 
> There was no way the Pac-12 was ever going to accept this deal on face value. It basically makes the Pac-12 a pay-per-view package that would isolate it to only the most diehard and wealthy of their uses, and that certainly doesn't run in the line with the same plan the Pac-12 put in the place with the rest of their providers. This was a bone thrown out by DirecTV to provide the apparition of an olive branch, only to be burned by the Pac-12 when they realized it was just a snake."
> 
> http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/9/21/3367058/pac-12-network-directv-plan-rejected


It was offered as a temporary solution until the situation was resolved and the PAC-12 Network team walked away. It was DirecTV making good faith efforts to work this out, while the PAC-12 continues to overvalue their worth for the foreseeable future after this weekend.


----------



## maartena

BusterAvis said:


> DirecTV must be losing more and more subscribers lately.


There's a few peeps at my work that switched to cable. And they are now laughing at me by the way because I guaranteed them DirecTV would make a deal. 

Other than that, I haven't heard a thing. They have had some friends over last weekend who wanted to watch certain games but couldn't.

I think they are probably starting to lose patience, but with many games being on national networks, switching may be too drastic. Which is a win for DirecTV.


----------



## Hoosier205

It's hilarious that anyone would believe that a new channel with limited content and appeal would have any meaningful impact on churn. A fraction of less than 1% of DirecTV's 20 million customers will leave over not having PAC-12. Some people leave over losing extremely popular and successful channels, this...ain't one of those times.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> It was offered as a temporary solution until the situation was resolved and the PAC-12 Network team walked away. It was DirecTV making good faith efforts to work this out, while the PAC-12 continues to overvalue their worth for the foreseeable future after this weekend.


That's ridiculous.. "GOOD FAITH"??? I don't see that at all.. This product is not an ALA CARTE product.. Maybe Directv is seeing the effects of holding out and perhaps is rethinking their strategy..


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> It's hilarious that anyone would believe that a new channel with limited content and appeal would have any meaningful impact on churn. A fraction of less than 1% of DirecTV's 20 million customers will leave over not having PAC-12. Some people leave over losing extremely popular and successful channels, this...ain't one of those times.


The Pac12 Faithful are leaving because this is important to them. I watched a little of the Big10 network this morning and thought it wasn't special to me, but hey for BIG10 fans I get it.. The Pac12 Networks looks very similar to me, having watching a little of the Pac12 Networks via streaming.

I find it hilarious that you keep criticizing a product you haven't even seen nor have any affiliation like the people on the West Coast who live and die by their teams..


----------



## kick4fun

maartena said:


> There's a few peeps at my work that switched to cable. And they are now laughing at me by the way because I guaranteed them DirecTV would make a deal.
> 
> Other than that, I haven't heard a thing. They have had some friends over last weekend who wanted to watch certain games but couldn't.
> 
> I think they are probably starting to lose patience, but with many games being on national networks, switching may be too drastic. Which is a win for DirecTV.


A win for Directv? Not sure yet... Pac12 doesn't have to agree to Directv's attempt at getting coverage with the little bone they threw out.. Jury is still out


----------



## sigma1914

Some of you were saying you're willing to pay for it, DirecTV tried to please you but the Pac12 rejected. P12 knows not enough people want their channel and are out for money. This is more proof ala carte is bogus.


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> Some of you were saying you're willing to pay for it, DirecTV tried to please you but the Pac12 rejected. P12 knows not enough people want their channel and are out for money. This is more proof ala carte is bogus.


I'm not so sure the offer Directv was showing was really trying to please us, but rather stop any future exodus of customers and retaining some leverage in negotiations.. I agree the Ala Carte is bogus.. Both sides are feuding over an enormous amount of money..


----------



## Carl Spock

kick4fun said:


> Both sides are feuding over an enormous amount of money..


In that this could set the standard for all of the future college conference packages, I agree. What will happen as the market fragments could cost DirecTV a lot of money. The negotiations could also determine how much each future conference network could expect.

But for the PAC 12 contract? It's chicken feed in the big scheme of things.


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> But for the PAC 12 contract? It's chicken feed in the big scheme of things.


Isn't that amazing.. We are small little pawns..


----------



## kick4fun

ok, now I'm on the fence.. 

Just went to my account on Directv and saw they are giving away a HD DVR for free to sign another 2 year contract.. That addition is nice and puts me in a conundrum.. 

1. should I take the offer and now at some point Directv will get the Pac12..

2. Refuse and go with Dish in January when the NFL is over

Mind you, I can already stream all Pac12 for free.. 

hmm..


----------



## sum_random_dork

Hoosier205 said:


> It was offered as a temporary solution until the situation was resolved and the PAC-12 Network team walked away. It was DirecTV making good faith efforts to work this out, while the PAC-12 continues to overvalue their worth for the foreseeable future after this weekend.


Sorry Hoosier I have to disagree with you there, it was far from a "Good faith" offer. D* knew that the Pac 12 would have to say no, they'd lose all their negoation power if they let D* Carry the channels either for free or on a PPV basis. If the deal didn't work out in two weeks or whatever the short time table would be it'd be spun by D* that The Pac 12 had removed the channels that DirecTV customers wanted and it was all The Pac 12's fault. They had to say no. It'd be like a supplier of a product or service and a customer coming to you and saying "hey I think you have a good item, but I don't like the price you're asking for it........why don't let you let me have it for free for a while see if my customers like if they do maybe we can figure out a "fair" deal if not...........hey I don't lose anything and you look bad taking it away from me/my customers."

The "offer" was set up by the PR dept of DirecTV and was known they'd say no. Every Nat'l writer I read after the anoucement was made said The Pac 12 didn't have a choice but to say "thanks but no thanks."


----------



## kick4fun

sum_random_dork said:


> Sorry Hoosier I have to disagree with you there, it was far from a "Good faith" offer. D* knew that the Pac 12 would have to say no, they'd lose all their negoation power if they let D* Carry the channels either for free or on a PPV basis. If the deal didn't work out in two weeks or whatever the short time table would be it'd be spun by D* that The Pac 12 had removed the channels that DirecTV customers wanted and it was all The Pac 12's fault. They had to say no. It'd be like a supplier of a product or service and a customer coming to you and saying "hey I think you have a good item, but I don't like the price you're asking for it........why don't let you let me have it for free for a while see if my customers like if they do maybe we can figure out a "fair" deal if not...........hey I don't lose anything and you look bad taking it away from me/my customers."
> 
> The "offer" was set up by the PR dept of DirecTV and was known they'd say no. Every Nat'l writer I read after the anoucement was made said The Pac 12 didn't have a choice but to say "thanks but no thanks."


Good point!


----------



## sum_random_dork

sigma1914 said:


> Some of you were saying you're willing to pay for it, DirecTV tried to please you but the Pac12 rejected. P12 knows not enough people want their channel and are out for money. This is more proof ala carte is bogus.


I would have no problem paying for it, in fact I wrote to DirecTV and said that. But, if they want to go down that route then they are looking at full ala carte and need to give customers true options of what they want/don't want.


----------



## Carl Spock

I think it's a no brainer, kick4fun. My recent experience says that a new DVR is an opening offer. Assuming you are off contract, I'd see what else you can get.

Plus I don't think DirecTV gave away ST so much this last year, or at least promoted it for cheap, just to let it get away from their clutches in the future. They wanted a lot of new subscribers to pay for the next ST contract. I wouldn't bet against DirecTV keeping ST an exclusive.


----------



## kick4fun

sum_random_dork said:


> I would have no problem paying for it, in fact I wrote to DirecTV and said that. But, if they want to go down that route then they are looking at full ala carte and need to give customers true options of what they want/don't want.


Like Big10.. Take that off my bill and make that ala Carte..


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> I'm not so sure the offer Directv was showing was really trying to please us, but rather stop any future exodus of customers and retaining some leverage in negotiations.. I agree the Ala Carte is bogus.. Both sides are feuding over an enormous amount of money..


A future exodus? Over the PAC-12 Network? You have to be more realistic than that. I'll take all the sports channels I can get. I enjoy Stanford football and UCLA men's basketball as well, but this is not yet a big time channel that will have an impact on churn.


----------



## DC_SnDvl

sum_random_dork said:


> I would have no problem paying for it, in fact I wrote to DirecTV and said that. But, if they want to go down that route then they are looking at full ala carte and need to give customers true options of what they want/don't want.


I would be willing to pay for it, but only if I could carve out things I don't watch like B1G, Cartoon network, E!....

They need to treat all the products equal for the entire customer base.


----------



## sigma1914

sum_random_dork said:


> I would have no problem paying for it, in fact I wrote to DirecTV and said that. But, if they want to go down that route then they are looking at full ala carte and need to give customers true options of what they want/don't want.


No they don't - it's not new, look at Fox Soccer Plus, formerly Sentata(?). The out of market big sports packages are similar, like ST, EI, etc. Movie packages. All partial ala carte like P12 could be, but they know they'll fail that way.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> A future exodus? Over the PAC-12 Network? You have to be more realistic than that. I'll take all the sports channels I can get. I enjoy Stanford football and UCLA men's basketball as well, but this is not yet a big time channel that will have an impact on churn.


It's already happened with some customers.. Notice I didn't say MASS EXODUS. This pertains to quite a few people in the LA Market, and West Coast in general.. Also, ask the millions of fans that watch and love the Lakers.. If Directv doesn't pick that channel up, BIG PROBLEMS.. Watch, you'll see..
Your precious Directv, "who can do no wrong", will be on the fence.


----------



## sum_random_dork

kick4fun said:


> It's already happened with some customers.. Notice I didn't say MASS EXODUS. This pertains to quite a few people in the LA Market, and West Coast in general.. Also, ask the millions of fans that watch and love the Lakers.. If Directv doesn't pick that channel up, BIG PROBLEMS.. Watch, you'll see..
> Your precious Directv, "who can do no wrong", will be on the fence.


Add in the big news today, that TWC picked up NFL Network/Redzone channel and another issue people had with switching is gone.


----------



## kick4fun

sum_random_dork said:


> Add in the big news today, that TWC picked up NFL Network/Redzone channel and another issue people had with switching is gone.


wow, that is big..

this has an interesting spin in relation to the big cluster of all the sports programming. 
http://blog.pe.com/jim-alexander/2012/09/19/column-network-vs-tv-carrier-with-fan-in-the-middle/


----------



## sum_random_dork

kick4fun said:


> wow, that is big..
> 
> this has an interesting spin in relation to the big cluster of all the sports programming.
> http://blog.pe.com/jim-alexander/2012/09/19/column-network-vs-tv-carrier-with-fan-in-the-middle/


I found it interesting in the article that they are asking $.80 a sub for Pac 12 as compared to FSN San Diego at over $5 a sub??? Wow that's a lot for just the Padres and FSN programing.


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> It's already happened with some customers.


How many by your estimates?



"kick4fun" said:


> Also, ask the millions of fans that watch and love the Lakers.. If Directv doesn't pick that channel up, BIG PROBLEMS.. Watch, you'll see..


Zero providers have picked it up. Zero.


----------



## BusterAvis

Actually, it's impossible now for this network to be turned on in time for tomorrow's games.

According to this week's Sixto report (on Wednesday), Pac-12 network is not showing anywhere as a test channel on DirecTV. If you remember, it was showing as a test channel on Dish Network, a couple days before they came to their agreement.

So for those carrying out any hope that a last minute deal can be reached tonight at midnight. It still wouldn't matter even if they reached an agreement tonight. The games will not be on DirecTV this weekend. And you can BANK THAT.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> How many by your estimates?
> 
> Zero providers have picked it up. Zero.


I said some.. I can point to a few.. http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=137&f=1995&t=9373499
Not including of course the CAL AD.. Also Marteena mentioned he had a couple of work peeps switch to cable.. You can literally spend hrs reading different web sites that show people have switched..

Time Warner cable??? ZERO? Go check again!


----------



## kick4fun

BusterAvis said:


> Actually, it's impossible now for this network to be turned on in time for tomorrow's games.
> 
> According to this week's Sixto report (on Wednesday), Pac-12 network is not showing anywhere as a test channel on DirecTV. If you remember, it was showing as a test channel on Dish Network, a couple days before they came to their agreement.
> 
> So for those carrying out any hope that a last minute deal can be reached tonight at midnight. It still wouldn't matter even if they reached an agreement tonight. The games will not be on DirecTV this weekend. And you can BANK THAT.


I concur...Ain't gonna happen!


----------



## Mariah2014

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...s-latest-offer-is-disingenuous-and-heres-why/


----------



## sum_random_dork

Interesting info from Jon Wilner is his blog:



> There's always a tension between the buyer and seller," one source said of distribution deals. "But the interesting thing here is that it's not like the Pac-12 is looking for its first distribution deal. The market has already spoken, and DirecTV isn't going to undo the market.
> 
> "The pricing and packaging are already in place &#8230; and other distributors are carrying the Pac-12 Networks on commercial terms that are acceptable."


He also noted, per sources that The Pac 12 is asking less than the $.90 the B1G channel gets. So we can assume they are more than fair in their pricing.


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...s-latest-offer-is-disingenuous-and-heres-why/


I was just reading that


----------



## kick4fun

sum_random_dork said:


> Interesting info from Jon Wilner is his blog:
> 
> He also noted, per sources that The Pac 12 is asking less than the $.90 the B1G channel gets. So we can assume they are more than fair in their pricing.


Not according to Hoosier205.. They should be bowing down to Directv because they don't have a good product.. Pac12 is nothing without the greatness of Directv..


----------



## sigma1914

If some of you wanted the channel bad enough, then you'd switch or add providers. Instead, you're reading blogs full of half truths, speculation, "inside sources," etc. Make the change if it's that important. I wanted the games on the Longhorn Network and the day it was added I upped my Uverse package to get it.


----------



## kick4fun

sum_random_dork said:


> Interesting info from Jon Wilner is his blog:
> 
> He also noted, per sources that The Pac 12 is asking less than the $.90 the B1G channel gets. So we can assume they are more than fair in their pricing.


"to use DTV's own language, &#8230; the company had no problem asking customers to pay for Pac-12 content "whether they are interested or not" when it was on the DTV-owned networks.

Suddenly, it has a problem asking customers to do that with the Pac12Nets, which, sources said, will have lower subscriber fees that the Root Sports channels.

By the way, I'm pretty sure it's illegal for a company like DTV, which owns both programming and distribution, to give its content preferential treatment."


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> If some of you wanted the channel bad enough, then you'd switch or add providers. Instead, you're reading blogs full of half truths, speculation, "inside sources," etc. Make the change if it's that important. I wanted the games on the Longhorn Network and the day it was added I upped my Uverse package to get it.


Why make the change when we can talk and speculate here? We are just showing that Directv isn't all that it claims to be when negotiating a good faith deal for the Pac12 Networks..


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> ...
> 
> By the way, I'm pretty sure it's illegal for a company like DTV, which owns both programming and distribution, to give its content preferential treatment."


:lol: Comcast Philadelphia and TW Lakers might disagree.


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> Why make the change when we can talk and speculate here? We are just showing that Directv isn't all that it claims to be when negotiating a good faith deal for the Pac12 Networks..


But the Pac12 are angels offering sweet deals? You're showing nothing but quoting 1 sided disgruntled blogs from upset bloggers.


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> But the Pac12 are angels offering sweet deals? You're showing nothing but quoting 1 sided disgruntled blogs from upset bloggers.


They have agreed with 4 other MAJOR carriers, not to mention 40 other smaller cable companies.. Doesn't this show consistency.. Directv always plays hardball, but I wouldn't call the offer from PAC12 unreasonable considering so many others bought into it..


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> They have agreed with 4 other MAJOR carriers, not to mention 40 other smaller cable companies.. Doesn't this show consistency.. Directv always plays hardball, but I wouldn't call the offer from PAC12 unreasonable considering so many others bought into it..


What 40...heck name 10? They're not on Uverse, Charter, Mediacom, Cablevision, Suddenlink or Fios? Why?


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> What 40...heck name 10? They're not on Uverse, Charter, Mediacom, Cablevision, Suddenlink or Fios? Why?


http://pac-12.com/portals/0/content/enterprises/dearfan/120918.html

How's this?


----------



## sum_random_dork

sigma1914 said:


> But the Pac12 are angels offering sweet deals? You're showing nothing but quoting 1 sided disgruntled blogs from upset bloggers.


Sigma, Jon Wilner isn't a one sided blogger as you wish to claim. He writes for The San Jose Mercury News/Bay Area News Group. He is their lead College writer and a respected Nat'l writer who votes on the top 25 poll. It's fine if you want to think he is on the side of the Pac 12, but he isn't just some "blogger" as you want to say. He writes his Wilner Hotline blog along with his regular articles.


----------



## sigma1914

sum_random_dork said:


> Sigma, Jon Wilner isn't a one sided blogger as you wish to claim. He writes for The San Jose Mercury News/Bay Area News Group. He is their lead College writer and a respected Nat'l writer who votes on the top 25 poll. It's fine if you want to think he is on the side of the Pac 12, but he isn't just some "blogger" as you want to say. He writes his Wilner Hotline blog along with his regular articles.


He's reputable, yes, but you gotta admit there's been a lot of blog posts. He's still like any journalist and relies on tips. My close friend is a writer (not as big as Wilner) for ESPN who's been on ESPNU and follows recruiting. Even he's received a dozen different answers about Pac12 on DirecTV. There's nothing we can do. Don't be angry ... get the network if you all can.


----------



## sdk009

I have access to the PAC-12.com channel, so I can watch the via the web. I would still rather have access through D* so that I can record games I might miss, and be able to playback game action while I'm watching it.
I find D*'s argument and position hypocritical and without merit. The PAC-12 has made an offer that has been acceptable to many carriers, and none of them have raised their fees because they added the PAC-12 Net.


----------



## kick4fun

sdk009 said:


> I have access to the PAC-12.com channel, so I can watch the via the web. I would still rather have access through D* so that I can record games I might miss, and be able to playback game action while I'm watching it.
> I find D*'s argument and position hypocritical and without merit. The PAC-12 has made an offer that has been acceptable to many carriers, and none of them have raised their fees because they added the PAC-12 Net.


I'm in the same situation..


----------



## kick4fun

Of course I really wanted Directv to show THE Pac12 Networks but now don't really care..

1st- wanted to be able to watch, well thanks to a password to Comcast, I can stream games
2nd- Really wanted the renovation at Martin Stadium, which Bill Moos said was on hold because of the no deal with Direct.. Guess what??
http://washingtonstate.scout.com/2/1223856.html

Now I can live in peace and wait until after the football season and make a decision that best suits my family.

After all, its just TV..


----------



## DC_SnDvl

kick4fun said:


> Not according to Hoosier205.. They should be bowing down to Directv because they don't have a good product.. Pac12 is nothing without the greatness of Directv..


+1


----------



## nitty316

I am absolutely stunned that DirecTV does not have the Pac 12 Network and seemingly everyone else (even Cox Cable in Omaha, NE) does.

I won’t ever leave DirecTV because their sports packages are second to none, but I am disappointed.


----------



## Carl Spock

Stunned that DirecTV drives a hard bargain in negotiations?

I'm not, especially when you consider the import of this decision. While none of us really knows what's going on in their executives' minds, I bet DirecTV isn't looking at this as just negotiating a PAC-12 deal. I imagine they are thinking ahead for future negotiations over networks by the ACC, SEC and even individual schools, like the one Texas has now.

This is not a trivial matter. I understand why DirecTV is playing hardball.

As a Pac-8 alumnus (I'm old), I don't like it but I understand it.


----------



## DC_SnDvl

mshaw2715 said:


> http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...s-latest-offer-is-disingenuous-and-heres-why/


One of the best items about a dispute like this that I have read.


----------



## DC_SnDvl

Unless Directv feels enough pain from holding out I am starting to think this might go until the B1G contract is up and they try to push that to a special package.

They are going to try and push all sports (except ESPN) out of the regulat packages because they know those are the networks subscribers would pay for.

They can keep charging the same for the base to everyone and get gravy from the sports networks.

I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Hoosier205

kick4fun said:


> Time Warner cable??? ZERO? Go check again!


TWC *OWNS* the channel.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> TWC *OWNS* the channel.


exactly, even better..


----------



## Hoosier205

kick4fun said:


> exactly, even better..


That doesn't even make any sense. I said that there are zero retrans deals to carry that particular channel. You claimed that there were. There are none, zero, zilch...


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> That doesn't even make any sense. I said that there are zero retrans deals to carry that particular channel. You claimed that there were. There are none, zero, zilch...


no, you said


> Zero providers have picked it up. Zero.


.
By definition, Time Warner Cable is a "Provider"
Time Warner Cable, which has about 2 million subscribers in Southern California, isn't looking to stop with the Lakers. Melinda Witmer, executive vice president and chief programming officer of Time Warner Cable, said the company would be "looking at all available sports in the marketplace."

Sorry if there is a misunderstanding, but I just went on your words..


----------



## Hoosier205

kick4fun said:


> no, you said .
> Sorry, by definition, Time Warner Cable is a "Provider"
> Time Warner Cable, which has about 2 million subscribers in Southern California, isn't looking to stop with the Lakers. Melinda Witmer, executive vice president and chief programming officer of Time Warner Cable, said the company would be "looking at all available sports in the marketplace."
> 
> If you mean something, then......


I said zero providers had picked it up. TWC didn't "pick it up." They own it. They produced it. They created it. They purchased content for it. There isn't a single provider in the country with a retrans deal to carry it.


----------



## bnwrx

mshaw2715 said:


> http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...s-latest-offer-is-disingenuous-and-heres-why/


Read this with an open mind...I don't really care when DTV and PAC12 make a deal, its football season and there is a little passion for coverage, but for the rest of the year...? Anyway this guy Jon Wilner seems to have slanted his view(as he is allowed) towards the PAC12 side of things. I would like to dispute his line..."By the way, I'm pretty sure it's illegal for a company like DTV, which owns both programming and distribution, to give its content preferential treatment...." I am not positively sure but isn't that exactly what Comcast does? IE: Philadelphia sports, Flyers and 76ers are only available in Philly on Comcast. I stand to be corrected if this is not the case.


----------



## Carl Spock

That line stuck out to me, too.

Ask the fans of Game Show Network if they think DirecTV gives preferential treatment for one of their own. GSN still isn't in HD on DirecTV.

There seems to be a disconnect at DirecTV between owning a network and transmitting it. This may be no more than good bookkeepping. For a while, I've thought DirecTV must feel they make good money owning GSN but that it would cost them money in lost resources to bump it up to HD.

It's probably wise business practices to look at this as two separate issues: owning a network and distributing it.


----------



## sdk009

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012...patiently-awaiting-the-arrival-of-reason.html

Another point of-view of this dispute and a note about the Dish/BTN spat.


----------



## BusterAvis

Ain't no late night deal this time around ....

http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/9/22/3372034/pac-12-network-directv-no-deal-cal-usc


----------



## kick4fun

BusterAvis said:


> Ain't no late night deal this time around ....
> 
> http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/9/22/3372034/pac-12-network-directv-no-deal-cal-usc


 I don't think it will happen. Maybe Basketball season.


----------



## Carl Spock

You need a half time pep talk.

_"Boys, we have plenty of time to win this game."_

Brinksmanship is an essential technique in negotiations. I found the best word I could say in a negotiation was, "No". Nothing got me more than simply saying, "No".

This is all SOP.


----------



## Spoonman27

The Big Ten network reached an agreement with Dish last night. This means directv won't be picking up a slew of Big Ten defectors.

http://www.iwantbtn.com/


----------



## sum_random_dork

"sdk009" said:


> http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012-articles/september/pac-12-network-and-big-ten-network-patiently-awaiting-the-arrival-of-reason.html
> 
> Another point of-view of this dispute and a note about the Dish/BTN spat.


Probably one of the best articled about the whole story out there. A bit out of date with Dish and BTN now having a deal in place. As many of us have said before it is hard to gauge interest in the Pac12 because the previous TV deal was horrible.


----------



## Mariah2014

I was looking back at how long it took the BTN to come to deals with a couple of companies and to be honest I think that plus the past with Versus and MTN with Directv give us a good idea at how long it will take. Everything points to it taking all of this college school year if not two school years to reach a deal on Directv.


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> I was looking back at how long it took the BTN to come to deals with a couple of companies and to be honest I think that plus the past with Versus and MTN with Directv give us a good idea at how long it will take. Everything points to it taking all of this college school year if not two school years to reach a deal on Directv.


Just enough time to sign up with Dish and fulfill a 2 year agreement..


----------



## kick4fun

Spoonman27 said:


> The Big Ten network reached an agreement with Dish last night. This means directv won't be picking up a slew of Big Ten defectors.
> 
> http://www.iwantbtn.com/


That's a big Check Mark.. Good for them and now if the get AMC, I'm sure they are back in the game..


----------



## Mariah2014

That is what I thought, but it could be worse they could pull a time warner vs nfl network. They only added because they know directv doesn't have the pac 12 and won't have twcs.


kick4fun said:


> Just enough time to sign up with Dish and fulfill a 2 year agreement..


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> That is what I thought, but it could be worse they could pull a time warner vs nfl network. They only added because they know directv doesn't have the pac 12 and won't have twcs.


It was definitely a counter move.. I like it.. I wonder how this sits on the board at Directv.. You think any pressure to add Pac12 now?


----------



## Mariah2014

Nope they changed their message. They either want to carry in seperate stand alone for like 15 bucks or they want to ppv it. They are now are saying they won't carry until the pac 12 lets them do exactly one of those two options. Which can only mean the offer is still on the table and that Directv has gagged interest to be very low.


kick4fun said:


> It was definitely a counter move.. I like it.. I wonder how this sits on the board at Directv.. You think any pressure to add Pac12 now?


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> Nope they changed their message. They either want to carry in seperate stand alone for like 15 bucks or they want to ppv it. They are now are saying they won't carry until the pac 12 lets them do exactly one of those two options. Which can only mean the offer is still on the table and that Directv has gagged interest to very low.


That's what they say, but it may not be what they do...


----------



## Mariah2014

I agree, but it will take them a year or a lot longer to change that tune.


kick4fun said:


> That's what they say, but it may not be what they do...


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> I agree, but it will take them a year or a lot longer to change that tune.


I won't hold my breath..


----------



## Mariah2014

Which is why I did what I did when I did it. I was reading something about the time warner and nfl deal and some saying that some place had to of frozen over for that deal to occur. I think that is what will have to occur here as well. At least I only missed the first two weekends and will get to enjoy the pac 12 game at 3pm today.


kick4fun said:


> I won't hold my breath..


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> I agree, but it will take them a year or a lot longer to change that tune.


That ridiculous offer that Directv just made was from Dan York, Derek Chang's replacement back in May... Chang was a Stanford Alum and was the programming chief from 2006 or so.. Now we have this clown, York who previously worked in top posts at In Demand Networks and HBO for Att Uverse.. Not sure if we'll ever see a good offer..


----------



## Mariah2014

Yea, I bet. He would probably sign up the all clown network or the all granny channel. He is a clown and as such probably won't hold the post very long unless he changes his ways and goes to a real school to learn how to it properly. Safe to say, he ain't know Stanford alum. 


kick4fun said:


> That ridiculous offer that Directv just made was from Dan York, Derek Chang's replacement back in May... Chang was a Stanford Alum and was the programming chief from 2006 or so.. Now we have this clown, York who previously worked in top posts at In Demand Networks and HBO for Att Uverse.. Not sure if we'll ever see a good offer..


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> That ridiculous offer that Directv just made was from Dan York, Derek Chang's replacement back in May... Chang was a Stanford Alum and was the programming chief from 2006 or so.. Now we have this clown, York who previously worked in top posts at In Demand Networks and HBO for Att Uverse.. Not sure if we'll ever see a good offer..





mshaw2715 said:


> Yea, I bet. He would probably sign up the all clown network or the all granny channel. He is a clown and as such probably won't hold the post very long unless he changes his ways and goes to a real school to learn how to it properly. Safe to say, he ain't know Stanford alum.


ATT UVerse...who has a ton of HD people been demanding here. Also, Changs still there for the rest of the year. He wasn't at "HBO for Att Uverse" he was at both.


----------



## Carl Spock

Do you really think the fact that Derek Chang is a Stanford alum would have made a difference?

On deals involving this much money, if it had, he would have deserved to be fired.

Even still, from what was said upthread, Chang is still in a position to affect the negotiations with the PAC-12. If he was going to look more favorably upon a deal with the PAC-12 because he graduated from Leland Snodfart Junior University, he has had plenty of chances to do it. He hasn't. Whatever DirecTV's stance is, it is obviously a corporate one and isn't affect by the schools these guys attended.


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> ATT UVerse...who has a ton of HD people been demanding here. Also, Changs still there for the rest of the year. He wasn't at "HBO for Att Uverse" he was at both.


Sorry, I meant both.. I still think he is a clown, but that's my opinion.. Nothing like Chang who made Directv really stand out.. I believe Chang is more on the sidelines and not really making the deals.. That offer that was made, screams Dan York. PPV??? Nah!


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> Do you really think the fact that Derek Chang is a Stanford alum would have made a difference?
> 
> On deals involving this much money, if it had, he would have deserved to be fired.
> 
> Even still, from what was said upthread, Chang was in a position to affect the negotiations with the PAC-12 for the last few months of his tenure. If he was going to look more favorably upon a deal with the PAC-12 because he graduated from Leland Snodfart Junior University, he had plenty of chance to do it. He didn't. Whatever DirecTV's stance was then, and is now, it is obviously a corporate one, and isn't affect by the school these guys attended.


I kinda do believe being a Stanford Alum, he might have had a little heart into the matter.. He is known for being a real tough negotiator, but fair..


----------



## Mariah2014

Probably why we have started to see some of that HD instead of the pac 12 network.


sigma1914 said:


> ATT UVerse...who has a ton of HD people been demanding here. Also, Changs still there for the rest of the year. He wasn't at "HBO for Att Uverse" he was at both.


----------



## kick4fun

No matter what, we all love to discuss the Pac12 stuff. And despite our differences, I love you all..  Off to go watch my COUGS beat up on Colorado... Gotta love the Pac12.


----------



## Carl Spock

kick4fun said:


> I kinda do believe being a Stanford Alum, he might have had a little heart into the matter.. He is known for being a real tough negotiator, but fair..


 If this is true, then Derek Chang wishes he had you across the negotiating table from him. You'd let your heart affect your head.

A real tough negotiator would be playing you like an opposing defensive lineman sucked into the backfield on a screen play.

Actually, if you change your "kinda do believe" to "wish", I agree with you. As I've said many times in this thread, I, too, want the PAC-12, badly. But wishing Chang would be more lenient in negotiations because of his old school ties will never happen.


----------



## Carl Spock

mshaw2715 said:


> Probably why we have started to see some of that HD instead of the pac 12 network.


We're in the middle of negotiations. You act like they are over. Things could break next week or even next month.

Plus I'm sure the decision to add these new HD channels was made a while ago, before the start of the football season.

The best negotiating is like playing chicken. In this case, neither side has veered and the two cars have crashed, but it is a slow motion crash. Only the front grills and bumpers have been affected so far, and they are barely dented. In a few weeks, we'll start crumpling the fenders of the two cars. But even if there is a settlement next month, the crash will be stopped and both sides will be able to drive away without any major damage.


----------



## James Long

kick4fun said:


> Sorry, I meant both.. I still think he is a clown, but that's my opinion.. Nothing like Chang who made Directv really stand out.. I believe Chang is more on the sidelines and not really making the deals.. That offer that was made, screams Dan York. PPV??? Nah!


As president of Content and Advertising Sales for AT&T, York developed the content strategy and offering for AT&T U-verse and oversaw AT&T's content activities across all of its platforms, including TV, online and mobile, which serves more than 100 million customers. In six years, he helped build U-verse from zero to more than $8 billion in annualized revenue while managing billions of dollars in content expense.

York was previously head of Programming and Development for In Demand Networks, the leading VOD, PPV, and sports provider. Before that he worked for 12 years at HBO, most recently managing the distribution, marketing, sponsorship, and select content acquisitions and programming operations for HBO's Sports PPV business.

York holds master's and bachelor's degrees from Michigan State University.​MSU is a decent school and it seems that Mr York has managed to have some success in his past. I suspect that Mr Chang is still at work with the "thoughtful transition" to Mr York ... and Mike White is still at the top overseeing it all.


----------



## kick4fun

I don't care about his resume, he's a clown who's offer to PAC 12 is disrespectful!


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> I don't care about his resume, he's a clown who's offer to PAC 12 is disrespectful!


Seems a little self centered of yourself to judge someone based on not getting a TV channel. Forget the other additions; it's all about YOU and Pac12 Network fans? Some of you take this too serious.


----------



## Carl Spock

kick4fun said:


> he's a clown who's offer to PAC 12 is disrespectful!


Yikes!

No red nose? I'm disappointed.


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> I don't care about his resume, he's a clown who's offer to PAC 12 is disrespectful!


You're basing your assessment upon one occurrence that you have limited knowledge of while lacking the full context?


----------



## kick4fun

Let me get this straight, its ok to showcase Big10 games and have higher fees than Pac12 offers??? .... Ok I'm more than biased, but that ala carte offer is ridiculous..


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> Let me get this straight, its ok to showcase Big10 games and have higher fees than Pac12 offers??? .... Ok I'm more than biased, but that ala carte offer is ridiculous..


You have no idea what the actual terms of the deal between the Big 10 network and DirecTV are. Rumor and reality can be very different. It also took four years to get done.


----------



## kick4fun

Ok, I agree. I am so overwhelmingly biased and emotional. These games mean a lot.. I really don't wont to go back and forth so I concede and wave the flag. At some point, I still would love to see Pac12 on DirecTV.


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> At some point, I still would love to see Pac12 on DirecTV.


As would I.


----------



## sigma1914

Hoosier205 said:


> As would I.


Ditto. I'm looking forward to Arizona basketball. Hoping for my dream championship - North Carolina vs. Arizona.


----------



## kick4fun

"Hoosier205" said:


> As would I.


Ya, we agree.


----------



## mhking

I sent DirecTV a note this afternoon to let 'em know how pissed off I am and promptly got a form letter in response (not that I expected anything different; they've heard it all by this point).

I'm just torqued off that it appears that they aren't taking the fans seriously.

The response I got:



> DIRECTV wants Pac-12 fans to have their network. Pac-12 Network is denying these same fans the service because they won't offer the channel at a price that's affordable for all DIRECTV customers whether they're fans or not. We'd like to come to an agreement with Pac-12 Network and believe there is an opportunity to add the channel immediately for any fan who wants it.
> 
> Please note that the vast majority of Pac 12 football games featuring the most popular teams with national title implications remain available to all DIRECTV customers through the ESPN family of networks and ABC Sports, FOX Sports and FSN, FX, CBS Sports and CBS Sports Network, NBC Sports and NBC Sports Network and several other regional services.
> 
> For more information please visit directvpromise.com/Pac-12.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> DIRECTV Customer Care


I guess USC at #13 doesn't count in their figuring of potential teams with BCS implications.

Sounds like DirecTV wants to be the leader in sports -- as long as it suits them and their wallets.


----------



## Mariah2014

The fact they added a page on the directv promise site shows their is enough pressure, but they just don't care. They are going to dig in for the long haul. Which also makes it even more clear that millions would have to leave to force directv to add the station quickly. The response they gave and the fact it was added to the directv promise website shows that this could take a year or two before we see it on directv.


mhking said:


> I sent DirecTV a note this afternoon to let 'em know how pissed off I am and promptly got a form letter in response (not that I expected anything different; they've heard it all by this point).
> 
> I'm just torqued off that it appears that they aren't taking the fans seriously.
> 
> The response I got:
> 
> I guess USC at #13 doesn't count in their figuring of potential teams with BCS implications.
> 
> Sounds like DirecTV wants to be the leader in sports -- as long as it suits them and their wallets.


----------



## sigma1914

mhking said:


> ...
> 
> I guess USC at #13 doesn't count in their figuring of potential teams with BCS implications.
> 
> ...


No, they said "national title implications." USC lost, they're out.


----------



## mhking

mshaw2715 said:


> The fact they added a page on the directv promise site shows their is enough pressure, but they just don't care. They are going to dig in for the long haul. Which also makes it even more clear that millions would have to leave to force directv to add the station quickly. The response they gave and the fact it was added to the directv promise website shows that this could take a year or two before we see it on directv.


I haven't realistically considered it up to this point, but if this really looks to drag on, I may have to consider switching to Dish myself. I've been with them nearly 10 years, but it sounds like they don't care about that...


----------



## mhking

sigma1914 said:


> No, they said "national title implications." USC lost, they're out.


(smirk) I know, but it's the principle of the thing... Besides, DirecTV claims to be the "leader" in sports TV. After this, it's obvious -- not so much.


----------



## Mariah2014

They only count the big ten, big 12, acc, and sec and just barely count the big 12.


sigma1914 said:


> No, they said "national title implications." USC lost, they're out.


----------



## sigma1914

mhking said:


> (smirk) I know, but it's the principle of the thing... Besides, DirecTV claims to be the "leader" in sports TV. After this, it's obvious -- not so much.


Well, who is? Who's got ST, practically every MLB, NBA, NHL game in HD, Hotpass, a ton more coverage of every golf and tennis grand slam events, etc...?


----------



## Mariah2014

Usually takes a year or two when they dig like they have.


mhking said:


> I haven't realistically considered it up to this point, but if this really looks to drag on, I may have to consider switching to Dish myself. I've been with them nearly 10 years, but it sounds like they don't care about that...


----------



## sigma1914

mshaw2715 said:


> They only count the big ten, big 12, acc, and sec and just barely count the big 12.


The important Pac12 games have been on national channels & if the pdf I posted holds true it'll continue.


----------



## Mariah2014

They did that because they knew it would take a little time, but they never thought it would take longer than football season to get Directv on board.


sigma1914 said:


> The important Pac12 games have been on national channels & if the pdf I posted holds true it'll continue.


----------



## mhking

sigma1914 said:


> The important Pac12 games have been on national channels & if the pdf I posted holds true it'll continue.


It sounded like they had already planned not to show the Cal-USC game this week, even if USC had won last week (and remained a top 5 team). 

I'm pissed, but I'll get over it. My WIFE is pissed -- and she's not a football fan. USC & Notre Dame are the only college teams she'll even think about watching (oh, and Howard, but they're never on TV)...

She's already asked me what it would take to switch...


----------



## sigma1914

mhking said:


> It sounded like they had already planned not to show the Cal-USC game this week, even if USC had won last week (and remained a top 5 team).
> 
> I'm pissed, but I'll get over it. My WIFE is pissed -- and she's not a football fan. USC & Notre Dame are the only college teams she'll even think about watching (oh, and Howard, but they're never on TV)...
> 
> She's already asked me what it would take to switch...


Notre Dame? Smart wife.  Did she attend Howard? HU has a place in my heart... Phi Beta Sigma's Alpha chapter.


----------



## Hoosier205

"mhking" said:


> (smirk) I know, but it's the principle of the thing... Besides, DirecTV claims to be the "leader" in sports TV. After this, it's obvious -- not so much.


Name a provider who even comes closes to what DirecTV offers in sports.


----------



## bnwrx

The best PAC12 game today was in Washington. 
CU 35/WSU 34.And it was on FX not PAC12 NET.....


----------



## BusterAvis

Should we close this thread and all Pac-12 with DirecTV discussion down?
Should we wait until August of 2013 before opening it back up?

There is no chance in hell that Pac-12 will get on DirecTV now until at least late August of 2013, when football season is about to get underway again next year.

Pac-12 sucks in basketball, and there are no true title implication games in Pac-12 regular season basketball.

It's moot to sit here and talk about this.
Keep a Pac-12 - Dish Network thread up, since Dish has it, but it's completely irrelevant now to have a thread about Pac-12 and DirecTV.

It's over.
The biggest football games on Pac-12 network have passed by.
The USC vs. Cal game (the biggest) is done.
The leverage (any leverage they had at all) for Pac-12 over DirecTV is finished.

Either Pac-12 caves in to DirecTV, or wait until August of 2013.
Your choice. But this thread is now officially meaningless.
DirecTV has chosen they'd rather lose a couple hundred thousand subs (200,000+), than to put Pac-12 on their lineup in the same way Dish Network and 40+ cable companies have.
Quite frankly, DirecTV has chosen to act like a binch in this whole process.


----------



## maartena

BusterAvis said:


> It's over.


Thank you for confirming you will not post about PAC12 any more until there is a deal. 

After all....



> There is no chance in hell that Pac-12 will get on DirecTV now until at least late August of 2013, when football season is about to get underway again next year.


----------



## Carl Spock

BusterAvis said:


> It's over.


I've always wondered who are those guys who leave at the end of the first quarter of a football game when their team is behind 0-24.

Now I know.


----------



## amh84

"BusterAvis" said:


> Pac-12 sucks in basketball, and there are no true title implication games in Pac-12 regular season basketball.


You can never count our schools out of contention in Football or Basketball. Especially after the beat down Arizona suffered last night.

In basketball, after a few off years they all of a sudden suck? Every conference has down years even the ESPN-beloved ACC.

If they're so horrible at sports why keep posting here? Leave it for us fans.

There's a good group of us that would love this network at a reasonable cost. Until then we will keep our fingers crossed for positive, productive negotiations and will continue to do so until the Pac-12 networks come on line.


----------



## Carl Spock

*amh84*

:joy:




























:jumpingja


----------



## uawildcat7

Pac 12 should be really good in basketball with ucla and az. Sorry if this has been answered but is dish only going to have pac 12.in hd for games?


----------



## sdk009

Lots of myopia by a few individuals who have such a bias against the PAC-12, no matter the facts, they'll just keep burying it. And, whatever DirecTV says or does, is the goespel for them.
A one loss team (Alabama) played for the BCS tittle this past January, so USC still has a chance, along with Oregon, to play for a tittle. And, for some of us its not just about wininng a tittle, but winning games week-in and week-out.
The PAC-12 has two of the top three basketball recruiting classes with UCLA rated #2 & Arizona #3 by Rivals.com.
There will be more than 150 basketball games carried by the PAC-12 Network, so there will many more live events shown beginning in November. It may be hard for some of you to swallow, but some of us actually like college basketball more than college football.
SO, I for one will keep hammering on DirecTV to make a deal, because my research tells me they are the ones keeping the net off its system.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sdk009" said:


> Lots of myopia by a few individuals who have such a bias against the PAC-12, no matter the facts, they'll just keep burying it. And, whatever DirecTV says or does, is the goespel for them.
> A one loss team (Alabama) played for the BCS tittle this past January, so USC still has a chance, along with Oregon, to play for a tittle. And, for some of us its not just about wininng a tittle, but winning games week-in and week-out.
> The PAC-12 has two of the top three basketball recruiting classes with UCLA rated #2 & Arizona #3 by Rivals.com.
> There will be more than 150 basketball games carried by the PAC-12 Network, so there will many more live events shown beginning in November. It may be hard for some of you to swallow, but some of us actually like college basketball more than college football.
> SO, I for one will keep hammering on DirecTV to make a deal, because my research tells me they are the ones keeping the net off its system.


I'd like to see that research.


----------



## Mariah2014

Seems Directv's point of view of the pac 12 gets better and better. This was their response to someone asking about the pac 12 channel.


> I am sorry - we have been working on the deal but PAC12 had been stalling the process


----------



## WebTraveler

mshaw2715 said:


> Seems Directv's point of view of the pac 12 gets better and better. This was their response to someone asking about the pac 12 channel.


They posted on Facebook the other day that Pac 12 was playing hardball. Yea, hardball by offering the SAME deal that their competitors were offered! Imagine that.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> They posted on Facebook the other day that Pac 12 was playing hardball. Yea, hardball by offering the SAME deal that their competitors were offered! Imagine that.


Which we know isn't true.


----------



## WebTraveler

Buster, it's about MORE than just football.



BusterAvis said:


> Should we close this thread and all Pac-12 with DirecTV discussion down?
> Should we wait until August of 2013 before opening it back up?
> 
> There is no chance in hell that Pac-12 will get on DirecTV now until at least late August of 2013, when football season is about to get underway again next year.
> 
> Pac-12 sucks in basketball, and there are no true title implication games in Pac-12 regular season basketball.
> 
> It's moot to sit here and talk about this.
> Keep a Pac-12 - Dish Network thread up, since Dish has it, but it's completely irrelevant now to have a thread about Pac-12 and DirecTV.
> 
> It's over.
> The biggest football games on Pac-12 network have passed by.
> The USC vs. Cal game (the biggest) is done.
> The leverage (any leverage they had at all) for Pac-12 over DirecTV is finished.
> 
> Either Pac-12 caves in to DirecTV, or wait until August of 2013.
> Your choice. But this thread is now officially meaningless.
> DirecTV has chosen they'd rather lose a couple hundred thousand subs (200,000+), than to put Pac-12 on their lineup in the same way Dish Network and 40+ cable companies have.
> Quite frankly, DirecTV has chosen to act like a binch in this whole process.


----------



## kick4fun

Talked to family and this is my decision related to Pac12 Networks.. 

I am offended by the way Directv has handled the Pac12 networks. I am personally affected from some jack crack who argued with me at a Directv booth and threw a wadded piece of paper at my 6 year old daughter yelling he's been watching Pac12 NETWORK for 2 years.. Yes, we went back and forth about network and that this is new, etc.... He wouldn't listen to reason.

OK!! Yes I realize this is not what directv is about. A letter to Mike White and all I got was a short email sent from his IPAD saying he would look into it and thanks for bringing this to his attention. 

1. If Dish gets AMC back before Directv gets Pac12, I'm GONE.. 
2. If Pac12 Comes to Directv, I'll stay until after the NFL season, then switch.

I am not convinced any longer that Directv has the best options.. I'm quite impressed with Dish and the Hopper that it might be time for a change.. If I'm wrong, well at least I tried it and can say I know from personal experience..


----------



## Mariah2014

I wouldn't expect amc back anytime soon with Dish network considering the history those two companies have with each other. Just like I would expect the pac 12 before this year is out either.


kick4fun said:


> Talked to family and this is my decision related to Pac12 Networks..
> 
> I am offended by the way Directv has handled the Pac12 networks. I am personally affected from some jack crack who argued with me at a Directv booth and threw a wadded piece of paper at my 6 year old daughter yelling he's been watching Pac12 NETWORK for 2 years.. Yes, we went back and forth about network and that this is new, etc.... He wouldn't listen to reason.
> 
> OK!! Yes I realize this is not what directv is about. A letter to Mike White and all I got was a short email sent from his IPAD saying he would look into it and thanks for bringing this to his attention.
> 
> 1. If Dish gets AMC back before Directv gets Pac12, I'm GONE..
> 2. If Pac12 Comes to Directv, I'll stay until after the NFL season, then switch.
> 
> I am not convinced any longer that Directv has the best options.. I'm quite impressed with Dish and the Hopper that it might be time for a change.. If I'm wrong, well at least I tried it and can say I know from personal experience..


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> I wouldn't expect amc back anytime soon with Dish network considering the history those two companies have with each other. Just like I would expect the pac 12 before this year is out either.


With the court cases resuming today and all the things I'm reading, it sounds like Dish and AMC will probably settle real soon. My guess is within a month.


----------



## Hoosier205

Yes, but Dish will still be using HD-Lite as well. HD picture quality is a priority in my household.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes, but Dish will still be using HD-Lite as well. HD picture quality is a priority in my household.


Not from what I've seen and heard... HD looks really good...


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> Not from what I've seen and heard... HD looks really good...


They don't offer a single 1080i channel in its full resolution and use a compression scheme that is inferior to that of DirecTV.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

kick4fun said:


> 1. If Dish gets AMC back before Directv gets Pac12, I'm GONE..
> 2. If Pac12 Comes to Directv, I'll stay until after the NFL season, then switch.


Just curious, but why would you leave if D* gets Pac 12, isn't that what you want?


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> They don't offer a single 1080i channel in its full resolution and use a compression scheme that is inferior to that of DirecTV.


hmm, I guess I need to do more investigating.. I too like good quality HD.. I'll get to the bottom of this and see if it makes a difference in my house..


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> hmm, I guess I need to do more investigating.. I too like good quality HD.. I'll get to the bottom of this and see if it makes a difference in my house..


There's a difference and it's well documented here and other video sites. Is Dish HD bad? No, not at all. It's just slightly softer and 1080i channels aren't full resolution.


----------



## kick4fun

TheRatPatrol said:


> Just curious, but why would you leave if D* gets Pac 12, isn't that what you want?


I think because of my personal experience with the Pac12 Networks and the booth guy, the hesitation and bickering back and forth from BOTH Directv and Pac12 and lastly the Hopper seems really cool. You can record ALL Prime time every night on 1 of 3 tuners.. but IF the HD Quality is really bad as Hoosier205 has pointed out, I may need to rethink this.. HMM. Good choices I guess..


----------



## Carl Spock

kick4fun, I appreciate the reasonableness of your stance here. This thread has exhibited the passion college football can bring out in people and you are trying to detach yourself from that. Congratulations. :righton:

I certainly don't know the details of your dealings with the DirecTV booth guy but it sounds like he needed to learn one of my favorite truisms as a salesman, and one of the few I wrote. Most I stole:

_You can never win an argument with a customer._

Even if you win the argument, you lose the customer. It sounds like he lost both.

I have to admit it took me a couple of years as a neophyte salesman to learn the truth of this phrase. Again, I don't know the situation but could you write it off to his being young and stupid?


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> kick4fun, I appreciate the reasonableness of your stance here. This thread has exhibited the passion college football can bring out in people and you are trying to detach yourself from that. Congratulations. :righton:
> 
> I certainly don't know the details of your dealings with the DirecTV booth guy but it sounds like he needed to learn one of my favorite truisms as a salesman, and one of the few I wrote. Most I stole:
> 
> _You can never win an argument with a customer._
> 
> Even if you win the argument, you lose the customer. It sounds like he lost both.
> 
> I have to admit it took me a couple of years as a neophyte salesman to learn the truth of this phrase. Again, I don't know the situation but could you write it off to his being young and stupid?


My letter

Dear Ellen,
I have been a loyal DIRECTV customer for more than six years. I am
writing this letter to share a disturbing experience with a DIRECTV
employee over the weekend.

On Saturday, August 11th, I attended the Bohemian Nights festival in
downtown Fort Collins, Colorado. As you may be aware, this is a large
event with hundreds of booths and more than 100,000 attendees.
DIRECTV had two booths at this event. I stopped by one of your booths
(at Remington Street and Mountain Ave.) to inquire about the upcoming
Pac 12 networks and whether or not DIRECTV was planning on carrying
the PAC 12 networks.

When I asked one of your employees about the network, he immediately
took on a condescending attitude and told me he's been watching the
network for two years. I assumed there was a misunderstanding and
explained that the PAC 12 network was launching this week. He then
said, "what do I know, I'm just an employee". He also accused me of
calling him a liar. It culminated in him yelling at me to "get the
F... out of my booth." At this point, I was very frustrated and did
indeed leave the booth, mostly shaking my head that he got so heated
because I questioned that perhaps he was uninformed about the PAC12
networks.

A few hours later I had to return to the festival to pick up my wife,
who was volunteering. I brought with me a printout about the PAC12
network, with the intent of giving him the correct information. When
I handed him the paper, he wadded it up and threw it at my six year
old daughter and shouted again for me to" get the F... out".

This interaction was so clearly aggressive and inappropriate that it
scared my daughter and frankly me. His entire reaction was so out of
proportion to the situation that I left immediately in the interest of
safety for my family.
After this interaction I went to the DIRECTV booth located on Matthew
Street. I spoke to them about what had just occurred, they apologized
and said they were not affiliated with the first DIRECTV booth. They
also answered my questions about the PAC12 network. There was a stark
contrast of customer service between the two booths; I truly hope this
was an isolated incident.

Let me start by saying I love DIRECTV as a product and have no
intention of leaving, but this sort of customer service needs to be
addressed. Why would a hothead be representing DIRECTV like that?
Even if I was wrong about channel lineups and such, why not discuss
the issue with me rather than take a tone of defensiveness and anger?
I thought you would like to know there are people like the one
mentioned who are representing DIRECTV.


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> kick4fun, I appreciate the reasonableness of your stance here. This thread has exhibited the passion college football can bring out in people and you are trying to detach yourself from that. Congratulations. :righton:
> 
> I certainly don't know the details of your dealings with the DirecTV booth guy but it sounds like he needed to learn one of my favorite truisms as a salesman, and one of the few I wrote. Most I stole:
> 
> _You can never win an argument with a customer._
> 
> Even if you win the argument, you lose the customer. It sounds like he lost both.
> 
> I have to admit it took me a couple of years as a neophyte salesman to learn the truth of this phrase. Again, I don't know the situation but could you write it off to his being young and stupid?


Thank you... I have really tried to forget this incident and how that affects my decision with Pac12, but a little hard because of the mixed emotions.. I am trying by best to become detached and look at what both companies can offer from a reasonable stance.. I was very emotional in my earlier posts, but as this drags out further and I read all the gossip and the blogs, it becomes harder for me to stay with Direct if Dish has the one product I want the most, PAC12 Networks


----------



## maartena

kick4fun said:


> My letter
> 
> It culminated in him yelling at me to "get the
> F... out of my booth."
> 
> When I handed him the paper, he wadded it up and threw it at my six year
> old daughter and shouted again for me to" get the F... out".


Either you are exaggerating your letter, or you have a very twisted loyalty to DirecTV. If *ANYONE*, from *ANY COMPANY* would treat my 6 year old daughter that way, I would have stopped doing business with that company the SAME day. (Or realistically, as soon as their competitor finished setting up their service). NO ONE gets to treat my family in such a manner and get away with it. No channel, AMC or PAC12 would be more important than my family.


----------



## donm

kick4fun said:


> Talked to family and this is my decision related to Pac12 Networks..
> 
> I am offended by the way Directv has handled the Pac12 networks. I am personally affected from some jack crack who argued with me at a Directv booth and threw a wadded piece of paper at my 6 year old daughter yelling he's been watching Pac12 NETWORK for 2 years.. Yes, we went back and forth about network and that this is new, etc.... He wouldn't listen to reason.
> 
> OK!! Yes I realize this is not what directv is about. A letter to Mike White and all I got was a short email sent from his IPAD saying he would look into it and thanks for bringing this to his attention.
> 
> 1. If Dish gets AMC back before Directv gets Pac12, I'm GONE..
> 2. If Pac12 Comes to Directv, I'll stay until after the NFL season, then switch.
> 
> I am not convinced any longer that Directv has the best options.. I'm quite impressed with Dish and the Hopper that it might be time for a change.. If I'm wrong, well at least I tried it and can say I know from personal experience..


I have decided almost the same as you. I am just waiting and hoping Dish and AMC settle from the trial soon. I just have the feeling they will settle this week. The only difference for me is #2 and add #3. If Dish doesn't settle and get AMC back and Charter gets the Pac 12 network I'm gone. I also have a #3 which is after this season of Walking Dead and Dish doesn't have AMC or Charter doesn't have the Pac 12 Network I will switch to Dish anyway. I'm also pretty interested in the Hopper. I have been wanting to get a third HD DVR for my daughter with my wife and daughter really wanting it. I just didn't want to get a longer contract on Directv unless they got the Pac 12 Network and with the Hopper I can add the third TV with the Dish and make everyone happy. I'm pretty picky HD guy and always look for the best HDTV I can afford and went last week to friends house to watch the Ducks on Dish (Pac 12 Network) and we watched some other shows afterwards and it looked damn good to me. He did have a top of line Pioneer plasma from a few years ago but still the source looked good. I wouldn't worry about Dish's HD unless you are really really picky. I doubt you will even notice the difference if there is any.


----------



## kick4fun

maartena said:


> Either you are exaggerating your letter, or you have a very twisted loyalty to DirecTV. If *ANYONE*, from *ANY COMPANY* would treat my 6 year old daughter that way, I would have stopped doing business with that company the SAME day. (Or realistically, as soon as their competitor finished setting up their service). NO ONE gets to treat my family in such a manner and get away with it. No channel, AMC or PAC12 would be more important than my family.


Wasn't an exaggeration unfortunately.. I have studied martial arts for a long time thus my name, KICK4FUN.. The hardest thing for me was to walk away.. I had one lady who grabbed me and told me to think of my children.. I thought the best way to handle this was to write a letter, which I did.. I got a response my Mike White, but very short.. I really tried to think this was an isolated incident and hoped by this point I would have heard more. I really tried to stay unemotional, but this has dragged out far too long..

I agree that family is important, that is why I didn't belt the guy and go to jail over the incident.. The cost of cancelling service over some jack crack who I know is isolated, wasn't worth it to me.. I took my chances of staying, now I am confronted with the possibility of changing.


----------



## maartena

WebTraveler said:


> They posted on Facebook the other day that Pac 12 was playing hardball. Yea, hardball by offering the SAME deal that their competitors were offered! Imagine that.


If you are buying 20 bottles of wine instead of 14 bottles of wine, wouldn't you approach the wine salesman and say.... hey, I am buying bulk, can I get a discount?

There is a difference in negotiating for 20 million subscribers (and 98% of sportsbars) and 14 million subscribers.

Dish lost AMC, so they don't have to pay them anymore. They also don't pay for NYC area sports network.... so they may simply have a little more room in their budget (they didn't increase their price this year either) to pay for PAC12, whereas DirecTV's numbers may be a lot tighter.

I mean, if my neighbor goes to a dealer and buys a car for $20k, and I go to the same dealer the next day and tell them: I will pay $19k, not a penny more.... the car dealer isn't going to say: "no deal, because your neighbor paid $20k". No, we are going to negotiate, and maybe come to $19.5k in the end, and I will walk away satisfied knowing I saved $500.

That's DirecTV. They don't feel the obligation to pay what others pay. They negotiate a deal that works for them, and will not buy until it gets close to the number they are thinking.


----------



## sum_random_dork

WebTraveler said:


> Buster, it's about MORE than just football.


I agree 100%! In my area water polo is VERY popular just about every High Schoool plays it and most kids start around age 10-12 playing on leagues in between their swimming seasons. I would love to be watching Water Polo, women's soccer, and even some of the volleyball.

Yes football rules in many ways, but add in the 150 basketball games coming up that's also something many would like to see. So I wouldn't say "it's over." Keep telling D* you want the channel and pressuring them.


----------



## kick4fun

donm said:


> I have decided almost the same as you. I am just waiting and hoping Dish and AMC settle from the trial soon. I just have the feeling they will settle this week. The only difference for me is #2 and add #3. If Dish doesn't settle and get AMC back and Charter gets the Pac 12 network I'm gone. I also have a #3 which is after this season of Walking Dead and Dish doesn't have AMC or Charter doesn't have the Pac 12 Network I will switch to Dish anyway. I'm also pretty interested in the Hopper. I have been wanting to get a third HD DVR for my daughter with my wife and daughter really wanting it. I just didn't want to get a longer contract on Directv unless they got the Pac 12 Network and with the Hopper I can add the third TV with the Dish and make everyone happy. I'm pretty picky HD guy and always look for the best HDTV I can afford and went last week to friends house to watch the Ducks on Dish (Pac 12 Network) and we watched some other shows afterwards and it looked damn good to me. He did have a top of line Pioneer plasma from a few years ago but still the source looked good. I wouldn't worry about Dish's HD unless you are really really picky. I doubt you will even notice the difference if there is any.


Thanks for the Update on the HD.. I have all Samsungs, with the family tv as the 52 inch Plasma.. I have heard the same about being very close to Directv in HD Quality.. And on top of all the PAC12 games being in HD, they have SRS True Volume.. WOW.. No more really loud commercials.


----------



## Carl Spock

kick4fun said:


> Dear Ellen...


What an a-hole. I wouldn't blame you if you left DirecTV permanently over this.

Funny it happened in Fort Collins. That's where I had my first job selling stereos. It was at Team Electronics from the summer of 1976 through the fall of 1977, and where I learned my craft, including (1) never lie to a customer, (2) never argue with a customer. I tried both at that store, failing most every time.

Team Electronics is long since gone but it was at 107 S. College Ave. in downtown Ft. Collins, above the Catacombs if that bar is still there. Amazingly, I found a picture of the store online, the site of my first full time, out on my own job after college.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Great pic. My first job in consumer electronics of any kind was a video rental store called "Video Revolution" off highway 28. They're long gone. According to Google it's a law office now.


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> What an a-hole. I wouldn't blame you if you left DirecTV permanently over this.
> 
> Funny it happened in Fort Collins. That's where I had my first job selling stereos. It was at Team Electronics from the summer of 1976 through the fall of 1977, and where I learned my craft, including (1) never lie to a customer, (2) never argue with a customer. I tried both at that store, failing most every time.
> 
> Team Electronics is long since gone but it was at 107 S. College Ave. in downtown Ft. Collins, above the Catacombs if that bar is still there. Amazingly, I found a picture of the store online, the site of my first full time, out on my own job after college.


That's great.. I've only lived in Fort Collins for about a year, but this is gorgeous out here.. No one else knows this, I'm sure you do, but Disneyland was modeled after Old Town, in Fort Collins CO. Thanks for the nice replies..


----------



## sum_random_dork

. This is how the streaming worked using Xfinity's website on my laptop using HDMI out. Pretty good quality but like most streaming it did buffer a few times and slow down.

It works, but would be much better if DirecTV added the network.


----------



## kick4fun

sum_random_dork said:


> View attachment 30078
> . This is how the streaming worked using Xfinity's website on my laptop using HDMI out. Pretty good quality but like most streaming it did buffer a few times and slow down.
> 
> It works, but would be much better if DirecTV added the network.


Agreed. The streaming looks good, but would be better on the satellite.


----------



## David Ortiz

Oct 6 game times and networks finalized: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...2-announces-kickoff-times-for-october-6-games

USC (Thurs.) and Oregon on ESPN, Stanford on Fox.


----------



## sigma1914

David Ortiz said:


> Oct 6 game times and networks finalized: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...2-announces-kickoff-times-for-october-6-games
> 
> USC (Thurs.) and Oregon on ESPN, Stanford on Fox.


Interesting - Fox originally had the UCLA/Cal game. I guess they dumped it for the better matchup, a top 10 Stanford vs a 1 loss, but good Arizona team... smart.


----------



## sum_random_dork

Bummer part about the games picked: Cal's first night game in the "new" Memorial Stadium. First time they'll have real lights instead of protable ones brought in for a game. The game is being broadcast on Pac 12 Networks.


----------



## BusterAvis

Ok, I know that I said this thread was basically meaningless and all (for the next 11 months), based on Pac-12 not having any more leverage until August of next year.

But I actually thought of something that would gain them leverage again, over DirecTV by or before then. If they decide to expand, quickly, with two more universities, and call themselves the Pac-14, then they might get on DirecTV by or before then. Send other employees in to do their negotiating with DirecTV, as the *Pac-14 conference*. As naive as DirecTV is (*especially their common employee*) at knowing about Pac football, then they would just think it's a completely different conference. That's how ignorant DirecTV will be. They don't know sh** about Pac football to begin with. They'll just assume it's a whole difference conference, and the negotiations can take place without the previous pride issues or bad blood to worry about. No previous grudge = better chance for deal.

So Pac needs to act quick.
Get two more on board (preferably east coast schools, since DirecTV cares about them a lot more). How about Syracuse and Rutgers? We're talking about the New York market right there, and DirecTV won't want to lose that.

*DirecTV:* "Hmmmm, Pac-14. Well, hopefully they're nicer to us in the negotiation process than that other conference was, the *Pack-12* or whatever they were called again"


----------



## Carl Spock

:icon_kiff

Buster, this is the kind of idea I would come up with at 1 AM, Ohio time.

But then I'd go to sleep and when I woke up, I'd ask, "How come I'm still wearing my clothes?"

Here. You'll feel better after a cup of jo.

:icon_cof:

No, no, no, no, no. Stop. That's bong water.


----------



## Hoosier205

"BusterAvis" said:


> Ok, I know that I said this thread was basically meaningless and all (for the next 11 months), based on Pac-12 not having any more leverage until August of next year.
> 
> But I actually thought of something that would gain them leverage again, over DirecTV by or before then. If they decide to expand, quickly, with two more universities, and call themselves the Pac-14, then they might get on DirecTV by or before then. Send other employees in to do their negotiating with DirecTV, as the Pac-14 conference. As naive as DirecTV is (especially their common employee) at knowing about Pac football, then they would just think it's a completely different conference. That's how ignorant DirecTV will be. They don't know sh** about Pac football to begin with. They'll just assume it's a whole difference conference, and the negotiations can take place without the previous pride issues or bad blood to worry about. No previous grudge = better chance for deal.
> 
> So Pac needs to act quick.
> Get two more on board (preferably east coast schools, since DirecTV cares about them a lot more). How about Syracuse and Rutgers? We're talking about the New York market right there, and DirecTV won't want to lose that.
> 
> DirecTV: "Hmmmm, Pac-14. Well, hopefully they're nicer to us in the negotiation process than that other conference was, the Pack-12 or whatever they were called again"


I'm not sure where you got the idea that they are unaware of the conference. You may want to look at where their corporate offices are located. Im sure there are a lot of fans of PAC-12 conference teams there. I'm also not sure why you believe industry leading executives would be confused by the addition of schools to a conference. This is a business decision. They aren't going to simply sign a deal they feel isn't right for them because a tiny fraction of their customers threaten to leave. The word is that DISH hasn't even experienced a lot of churn after dropping AMC. The lack of PAC-12 Network will have far less impact on DirecTV than losing AMC has had on DISH.

DirecTV has a reputation for taking their time and getting the deal right the first time so that the long term prospects are as positive as possible. Again, it's a business decision. When the two sides come to terms on a deal they can both agree upon, they will add the channel. The number of deals the network has with other providers is meaningless. Regional cable companies are far more dependent upon regional programming and it has a bigger impact on them if they don't add this channel. The only national provider to add it is DISH and they are desperate for positive press following a string of disappointments and a massive ($$$) court ruling that could come any day now. Those other providers had/have a greater financial risk by not adding the PAC-12 Network.


----------



## Mariah2014

The only way that would work is if the schools were like some of the following Notre Dame, Michigan, Duke, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Florida State, and Texas to name a few. They have to be the schools with huge followings and are in demand nationally.


BusterAvis said:


> Ok, I know that I said this thread was basically meaningless and all (for the next 11 months), based on Pac-12 not having any more leverage until August of next year.
> 
> But I actually thought of something that would gain them leverage again, over DirecTV by or before then. If they decide to expand, quickly, with two more universities, and call themselves the Pac-14, then they might get on DirecTV by or before then. Send other employees in to do their negotiating with DirecTV, as the *Pac-14 conference*. As naive as DirecTV is (*especially their common employee*) at knowing about Pac football, then they would just think it's a completely different conference. That's how ignorant DirecTV will be. They don't know sh** about Pac football to begin with. They'll just assume it's a whole difference conference, and the negotiations can take place without the previous pride issues or bad blood to worry about. No previous grudge = better chance for deal.
> 
> So Pac needs to act quick.
> Get two more on board (preferably east coast schools, since DirecTV cares about them a lot more). How about Syracuse and Rutgers? We're talking about the New York market right there, and DirecTV won't want to lose that.
> 
> *DirecTV:* "Hmmmm, Pac-14. Well, hopefully they're nicer to us in the negotiation process than that other conference was, the *Pack-12* or whatever they were called again"


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> The only way that would work is if the schools were like some of the following Notre Dame, Michigan, Duke, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Florida State, and Texas to name a few. They have to be the schools with huge followings and are in demand nationally.


It would be cool for the Pac12 to grab some independents like Notre Dame..


----------



## tonyd79

"kick4fun" said:


> It would be cool for the Pac12 to grab some independents like Notre Dame..


Sorry. Notre Dame is almost in the ACC now. They are ending their series with Michigan!


----------



## maartena

kick4fun said:


> It would be cool for the Pac12 to grab some independents like Notre Dame..


Except that Notre Dame is way outside of PAC12 territory. PAC12 as a size is already large (just like most western leagues in the majors) and traveling back and forth to Indiana isn't something they will be looking forward to.

Stanford would have a serious competitor in Field Hockey though.


----------



## David Ortiz

Pac-12 expansion only makes sense if Texas is onboard. It would have been cool to see Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri as the four but that ship has sailed. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and OSU I believe are the most likely to eventually join.


----------



## sum_random_dork

kick4fun said:


> It would be cool for the Pac12 to grab some independents like Notre Dame..


That was what Larry Scott tried to do, he wanted Texas and Oaklahoma. Problem was Texas wanted their own TV deal and they wanted to bring along Texas Tech and A&M. There was talk less than a year ago that Oaklahoma was still seriously looking at joining the Pac 12 and having OK State come with them to make it a 14 team conf. That's when the Big12 got desperate and worked out deals to keep them.


----------



## ajc68

Last offseason the Oklahoma schools (OU and OSU) voted to join what would've become the Pac-14. They thought they would be accepted, but the PAC presidents voted against it. It was the Pac-16 (which included UT) or bust. A Pac-14 just didn't work logistically, leaving both travel and scheduling unbalanced. I was hoping for a Pac-16 (but UT screwed that up...twice!) and agreed a Pac-14 just didn't work. 

I believe the Pac-12 has made a fair offer with DTV (coming way down from what the B1G is getting), but has run into a co. that is attempting to dramatically change its business model. Clearly DTV is feeling some heat now, as is made clear by their evolving stance on P12N (now it's a wonderful network they would love to carry, if only the P12 would play fair). It's unfortunate DTV ended up insulting so many passionate and educated P12 customers early on, a bell they cannot un-ring, with their poorly attempted Jedi mind trick, which sent those annoying fanboys to spread their insulting spin across these message boards. Why not just be honest about the situation DTV? And I say this as both a longtime DTV customer (spending around $20k since the late 90's) and a shareholder.


----------



## Hoosier205

ajc68 said:


> Clearly DTV is feeling some heat now, as is made clear by their evolving stance on P12N


I have seen absolutely no evidence of that at all. Their Q3 numbers will be released soon and I expect churn to be very low. The lack of an upstart, highly specialized, and unproven network will have very little impact.



ajc68 said:


> It's unfortunate DTV ended up insulting so many passionate and educated P12 customers early on


Heaven forbid a publicly traded company focus on making wise business decisions rather than rash choices based upon the wants of a small segment of their customer base. 

You have no idea what the PAC-12 offered in a potential deal. They can't even keep their own versions of that story straight themselves. I want this channel as well, but let's be realistic and understand that this is a business.


----------



## kick4fun

View attachment 30093


go cougs


----------



## donm

kick4fun said:


> View attachment 30093
> 
> 
> go cougs


That's funny. You are going to need them. Go ducks!


----------



## kick4fun

donm said:


> That's funny. You are going to need them. Go ducks!


I thought you'd like..  Go PAC12!


----------



## Spoonman27

Or is this just bluster? (From directv twitter a few hours ago)

DIRECTV ‏@DIRECTV

DIRECTV has always been a sports leader. We hope to reach a deal soon w the #Pac12, just like we did w the #BigTen, #SEC, #Big12 & #BigEast. 

DIRECTV ‏@DIRECTV

@34DUX We are prepared to offer the Pac-12 Network immediately, before this weekend’s games, as a stand alone channel. #Pac12


----------



## sigma1914

Spoonman27 said:


> ...
> 
> @34DUX We are prepared to offer the Pac-12 Network immediately, before this weekend's games, as a stand alone channel. #Pac12


The Pac12 wouldn't allow this offer, maybe they changed their mind?


----------



## maartena

Spoonman27 said:


> Or is this just bluster? (From directv twitter a few hours ago)
> 
> DIRECTV ‏@DIRECTV
> 
> DIRECTV has always been a sports leader. We hope to reach a deal soon w the #Pac12, just like we did w the #BigTen, #SEC, #Big12 & #BigEast.
> 
> DIRECTV ‏@DIRECTV
> 
> @34DUX We are prepared to offer the Pac-12 Network immediately, before this weekend's games, as a stand alone channel. #Pac12


No news. The @direcTV twitter team has been saying something along those lines for months "hope to reach a deal soon, stay tuned".

The standalone offer was done last week as a temporary agreement until a more permanent agreement was reached, but was rejected by PAC12. (And understandably so, why would they want to have people pay for something they may get for "free" a few weeks down the line.... and already on other providers).

There is no thawing. There is a hard, ice cold deadlock that doesn't seem to be getting close to thawing any time soon. With the most important football games out of the way, the channel's worth for THIS year has been drastically reduced.


----------



## maartena

ajc68 said:


> I believe the Pac-12 has made a fair offer with DTV (coming way down from what the B1G is getting), but has run into a co. that is attempting to dramatically change its business model.


I have tried, but have been unsuccessful in getting the details of this "fair offer" that PAC12 has made. Do you know a little more than we do? What exactly has been offered?



> Clearly DTV is feeling some heat now, as is made clear by their evolving stance on P12N (now it's a wonderful network they would love to carry, if only the P12 would play fair).


From what I see on Twitter, Facebook, and forums like this, I see a lot of "I'm going to ditch DirecTV" threats, but not a whole lot of "I have switched to provider X" comments. So I see no evidence that DirecTV is feeling the heat. If they aren't losing a lot of customers, what heat should they be feeling exactly?



> It's unfortunate DTV ended up insulting so many passionate and educated P12 customers early on, a bell they cannot un-ring, with their poorly attempted Jedi mind trick, which sent those annoying fanboys to spread their insulting spin across these message boards. Why not just be honest about the situation DTV? And I say this as both a longtime DTV customer (spending around $20k since the late 90's) and a shareholder.


I'm still trying to get PAC12 to be honest. From several posts on Twitter and from sports editor blogs I have been able to surmise that an offer was made TO Pac12 for the main channel on channel # 626 with overflow channels for live sporting events (similar as what Dish has in place) for about 70 cents a subscriber. Now if this is true or not, I can't verify... but at least there is some information leaking from DirecTV regarding this. Sportsjournal said PAC12 was asking for 80 cents.

PAC12.... keeps their mouth shut if you ask them anything. They say they have offered a "fair deal" that is "similar to Dish", but they REFUSE to give any details about this "fair deal". Tribune and Viacom ended up releasing their numbers during their dispute, but PAC12 has not done so.... which is of course not uncommon.

Bottom line: We really can't tell who is to blame until someone starts showing some numbers and we, the customers, can decide.


----------



## BusterAvis

Spoonman27 said:


> Or is this just bluster? (From directv twitter a few hours ago)
> 
> DIRECTV ‏@DIRECTV
> 
> DIRECTV has always been a sports leader. We hope to reach a deal soon w the #Pac12, just like we did w the #BigTen, #SEC, #Big12 & #BigEast.
> 
> DIRECTV ‏@DIRECTV
> 
> @34DUX We are prepared to offer the Pac-12 Network immediately, before this weekend's games, as a stand alone channel. #Pac12


What the flip is a stand alone channel?
That could mean a thousand things.


----------



## Hoosier205

"BusterAvis" said:


> What the flip is a stand alone channel?
> That could mean a thousand things.


Not really. It only means one thing. A stand alone channel is just that. It stands alone and is not part of a package. One channel for a monthly fee.


----------



## Mariah2014

Correct their offer is further away and not closer. They had offered sports pack to put it in and treat it like big ten network, but would not be available outside of that package. The offers now make it an ala carte type option that isn't part of even sports pack. Directv basically doesn't want to take the channel unless it is in some premium type option. 


BusterAvis said:


> What the flip is a stand alone channel?
> That could mean a thousand things.


----------



## sigma1914

mshaw2715 said:


> Correct their offer is further away and not closer. They had offered sports pack to put it in and treat it like big ten network, but would not be available outside of that package. ... Directv basically doesn't want to take the channel unless it is in some premium type option.


Sounds fair. TWC has it in the Sports Pack.


----------



## stevester23

I was very optimistic about this channel 2 weeks ago, but now I think It's less than far less than 50% that we will get this channel anytime soon.

Both sides seem to be dug in and prepared to drag this out.

Pac 12 is still betting that people will leave for other carriers and force D* hand. I dont see this happening, especially since they have exclusive carriage of Sunday Ticket. Maybe after NFL season is over, but not now.

If PAC 12 had a single National Channel like the Big Ten we would most likely have this channel. I may be totally off base, but it's probably the 6 six regional feeds and how to distribute them that is holding this up.

It took Time Warner 7 years to carry NFL Network.


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> Correct their offer is further away and not closer. They had offered sports pack to put it in and treat it like big ten network, but would not be available outside of that package. The offers now make it an ala carte type option that isn't part of even sports pack. Directv basically doesn't want to take the channel unless it is in some premium type option.


Great.. If that's their stance, I will go ahead and schedule my DISH install for next weekend... I'll miss my Sunday Ticket, but I guess I'll watch my team via the Redzone..


----------



## kick4fun

stevester23 said:


> I was very optimistic about this channel 2 weeks ago, but now I think It's less than far less than 50% that we will get this channel anytime soon.
> 
> Both sides seem to be dug in and prepared to drag this out.
> 
> Pac 12 is still betting that people will leave for other carriers and force D* hand. I dont see this happening, especially since they have exclusive carriage of Sunday Ticket. Maybe after NFL season is over, but not now.
> 
> If PAC 12 had a single National Channel like the Big Ten we would most likely have this channel. I may be totally off base, but it's probably the 6 six regional feeds and how to distribute them that is holding this up.
> 
> It took Time Warner 7 years to carry NFL Network.


The regional channels all broadcast the same as the National Broadcast, unless it's game time..


----------



## Mariah2014

They mentioned the fact they did this on their facebook page when responding to several different people. I think their newest offer didn't go over with anyone. Which is why they included what had also been on the table.


kick4fun said:


> Great.. If that's their stance, I will go ahead and schedule my DISH install for next weekend... I'll miss my Sunday Ticket, but I guess I'll watch my team via the Redzone..


----------



## kick4fun

correct me if I'm wrong, but the NFL made a rule for Directv to offer the NFL through a streaming option for those who can't have a Dish.. Their solution was the PS3, that in my mind is awful... It lags and is no where near the competing streaming options like MLB or the Pac12 Networks.. Hmm, the NFL contract is up after the 2014 season and I'm betting that both Comcast and Dish are eyeing the chance.. NFL would be smart to include as many providers as possible...


----------



## Mariah2014

Correct, but your not supposed to be able to get that way because you can get dish. However, I believe several who have dish network have already been doing this.


kick4fun said:


> correct me if I'm wrong, but the NFL made a rule for Directv to offer the NFL through a streaming option for those who can't have a Dish.. Their solution was the PS3, that in my mind is awful... It lags and is no where near the competing streaming options like MLB or the Pac12 Networks.. Hmm, the NFL contract is up after the 2014 season and I'm betting that both Comcast and Dish are eyeing the chance.. NFL would be smart to include as many providers as possible...


----------



## stevester23

mshaw2715 said:


> Correct, but your not supposed to be able to get that way because you can get dish. However, I believe several who have dish network have already been doing this.


I think Kick4fun was implying PS# was for people who cant have a dish and not refering to the Dish Network


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> correct me if I'm wrong, but the NFL made a rule for Directv to offer the NFL through a streaming option for those who can't have a Dish.. Their solution was the PS3, that in my mind is awful... It lags and is no where near the competing streaming options like MLB or the Pac12 Networks.. Hmm, the NFL contract is up after the 2014 season and I'm betting that both Comcast and Dish are eyeing the chance.. NFL would be smart to include as many providers as possible...


It won't happen, nor would it be smart. There is a reason why Sunday Ticket is limited to one provider and that won't change. The NFL wants to limit ST availability to protect it's television partners and local affiliates. DirecTV will have the ability to negotiate a new contract before the bidding is ever opened up to other providers unless DirecTV passes on it. They won't.


----------



## kick4fun

stevester23 said:


> I think Kick4fun was implying PS# was for people who cant have a dish and not refering to the Dish Network


He understands, because we have been talking about me switching to the DISH.. 
My original point was that the quality of Directv's PS3 online streaming is awful and $100 more than those who just want to have Sunday ticket on tv. My thought is that Directv wants people to come over to their subscription rather than offer a good product for the streaming option. I hope the NFL is taking notice, because I would like to have greater competition..


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> It won't happen, nor would it be smart. There is a reason why Sunday Ticket is limited to one provider and that won't change. The NFL wants to limit ST availability to protect it's television partners and local affiliates. DirecTV will have the ability to negotiate a new contract before the bidding is ever opened up to other providers unless DirecTV passes on it. They won't.


Maybe you're right and why NFL has such a demand..


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> Maybe you're right and why NFL has such a demand..


They do. Also, the PS3 version is only intended for those who cannot get DirecTV service at their address, not those who choose not to.


----------



## stevester23

Hoosier205 said:


> It won't happen, nor would it be smart. There is a reason why Sunday Ticket is limited to one provider and that won't change. The NFL wants to limit ST availability to protect it's television partners and local affiliates. DirecTV will have the ability to negotiate a new contract before the bidding is ever opened up to other providers unless DirecTV passes on it. They won't.


If DTV ever lost it's exclusive Sunday Ticket carriage chances are they would lose massive numbers of subscribers. I'm not a bean counter, but they may take a loss on this service or break even just to get/keep people under contract.


----------



## kick4fun

stevester23 said:


> If DTV ever lost it's exclusive Sunday Ticket carriage chances are they would lose massive numbers of subscribers. I'm not a bean counter, but they may take a loss on this service or break even just to get/keep people under contract.


That's their angle.. Without NFL, they are at a huge risk...


----------



## Hoosier205

"stevester23" said:


> If DTV ever lost it's exclusive Sunday Ticket carriage chances are they would lose massive numbers of subscribers. I'm not a bean counter, but they may take a loss on this service or break even just to get/keep people under contract.


Yep. When they pay $4 billion for Sunday Ticket rights...it's pretty important.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> They do. Also, the PS3 version is only intended for those who cannot get DirecTV service at their address, not those who choose not to.


But we all know this isn't really happening..


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> That's their angle.. Without NFL, they are at a huge risk...


Even without ST they still offer far more sports, more HD channels, and superior HD picture quality (with the possible exception of Verizon).


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> But we all know this isn't really happening..


Not that it matters. A very small number of people sub only to the PS3 version compared to full Sunday Ticket. Either way...DirecTV still gets paid.


----------



## sigma1914

stevester23 said:


> If DTV ever lost it's exclusive Sunday Ticket carriage chances are they would lose massive numbers of subscribers. I'm not a bean counter, but they may take a loss on this service or break even just to get/keep people under contract.





kick4fun said:


> That's their angle.. Without NFL, they are at a huge risk...


If they lost every ST sub, then it'd be 2 million subs. Not EVERY sub would leave. Also, the money made of ST is off commercial accounts and not home subs.


----------



## Carl Spock

I'm a sports guy who has had DirecTV for years but never has had ST before this year, and I only got it because it was free. I'll see how I feel about ST at the end of the season but so far I'm not that impressed. I can always get the Packers and really, it's rare that I'm so interested in an outmarket game I don't get anyway that I feel left out.

But I'm open minded. I need to find an outmarket team that I'm hooked on. It might be the Broncos or Niners. I'm going to follow them for the season and see what happens.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Carl Spock" said:


> I'm a sports guy who has had DirecTV for years but never has had ST before this year, and I only got it because it was free. I'll see how I feel about ST at the end of the season but so far I'm not that impressed. I can always get the Packers and really, it's rare that I'm so interested in an outmarket game I don't get anyway that I feel left out.
> 
> But I'm open minded. I need to find an outmarket team that I'm hooked on. It might be the Broncos or Niners. I'm going to try to follow them for the season and see what happens.


That makes since. It's geared towards displaced fans. You aren't displaced. Neither am I, but I have a lot of interest in out of market teams.


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> I'm a sports guy who has had DirecTV for years but never has had ST before this year, and I only got it because it was free. I'll see how I feel about ST at the end of the season but so far I'm not that impressed. I can always get the Packers and really, it's rare that I'm so interested in an outmarket game I don't get anyway that I feel left out.
> 
> But I'm open minded. I need to find an outmarket team that I'm hooked on. It might be the Broncos or Niners. I'm going to follow them for the season and see what happens.


Why not the Seahawks???.. Just kidding.. I am a huge Seahawks fan and I must say I'm sorry about MNF.. That was plain wrong and it took away from a great Defensive game both were playing..

As far as Sunday Ticket, some years I get it, some others I don't.. A lot of time I end up falling asleep on the couch..


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> Even without ST they still offer far more sports, more HD channels, and superior HD picture quality (with the possible exception of Verizon).


but they are the grand daddy because of the NFL.. After that, each carrier has their own niche based on the local market draw.. Directv has YES, Dish has PAc12, and TWC has Lakers.. I guess it all depends..


----------



## Mariah2014

The key is that they are betting on people choosing the NFL over the pac 12.


kick4fun said:


> but they are the grand daddy because of the NFL.. After that, each carrier has their own niche based on the local market draw.. Directv has YES, Dish has PAc12, and TWC has Lakers.. I guess it all depends..


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> The key is that they are betting on people choosing the NFL over the pac 12.


I agree.. and no doubt NFL has a VERY STRONG PULL, there are those who live in cities that showcase their NFL teams.. I think the Sunday Ticket draw is for people like me who are fans of a team that is out of market, like the Seahawks.. Fort College teams, this is a whole different ballgame, because now you can't even go to you're friends house or the local watering hole unless they carry Comcast or Dish...


----------



## kick4fun

http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/9/27/3416914/pac-12-network-directv-rumors-week-4-college-football
Seems like Directv and Pac12 are nowhere close..., but I guess we already knew that..


----------



## sum_random_dork

kick4fun said:


> http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/9/27/3416914/pac-12-network-directv-rumors-week-4-college-football
> Seems like Directv and Pac12 are nowhere close..., but I guess we already knew that..


Could be correct or possibly something is happening. Seems both sides have been quiet and not saying a lot. The only thing we are hearing is what DirecTV says in that they are ready to launch the channel if/when a deal is signed. I am keeping my fingers crossed that's a good sign.


----------



## maartena

kick4fun said:


> http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/9/27/3416914/pac-12-network-directv-rumors-week-4-college-football
> Seems like Directv and Pac12 are nowhere close..., but I guess we already knew that..


I think it is about time to give this whole thing a rest actually. Neither side is budging, and I am pretty sure DirecTV will not budge until PAC12 does. So unless PAC12 will drop its price, nothing is going to happen any time soon.

Since it may take a week to schedule an install, especially if you want one in a weekend or another time on YOUR schedule, you probably should already have called to setup an appointment if you want to see the Washington State @ Oregon State game in 10 days from now.

Or find a bar that has cable or Dish, so you don't have to switch yet.

Oregon State Beavers fans with DirecTV are screwed this weekend _and_ next weekend if I look at the schedule, as their games in both those weekends are on PAC12 only.


----------



## Mariah2014

I like the fact I get the pac 12 network and don't have any problem with the picture, but my receiver guide goes out about 36 hours. It might be because it is not a dvr.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Ok I just deleted a whole bunch of off topic posts. Most of these posts didn't even mention the Pac-12 network and those that did were discussing HD resolutions and such. This is a sports discussion. If you want to discuss the merits of switching and Roku and how the Dish refer a friend program works and whether or not a provider is HD lite...etc, etc, etc start a thread. We have different forums for a reason.

We've been down this road before. The next Off Topic poster is gone.

POST ON TOPIC OR DON'T POST AT ALL!

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## woj027

I'm thinking positive thoughts about the current lull in propaganda as well as "new' articles about progress (or lack of progress).


----------



## kick4fun

maartena said:


> I think it is about time to give this whole thing a rest actually. Neither side is budging, and I am pretty sure DirecTV will not budge until PAC12 does. So unless PAC12 will drop its price, nothing is going to happen any time soon.
> 
> Since it may take a week to schedule an install, especially if you want one in a weekend or another time on YOUR schedule, you probably should already have called to setup an appointment if you want to see the Washington State @ Oregon State game in 10 days from now.
> 
> Or find a bar that has cable or Dish, so you don't have to switch yet.
> 
> Oregon State Beavers fans with DirecTV are screwed this weekend _and_ next weekend if I look at the schedule, as their games in both those weekends are on PAC12 only.


So please forgive me, I really thought a few of my last posts were Pac12 related and I certainly respect the MODS for doing what needs to be done. I made the switch to DISH because of Pac12.. I really felt you have sort of dared some of us to make it happen. Well I did and will have full access to the Pac12 in the morning.. Quick turnover I think.. 
That being said, Glad I made the move because this is what I just read.. http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/9/...directv-larry-scott-says-a-deal-looks-far-off


----------



## WebTraveler

maartena said:


> Since it may take a week to schedule an install, especially if you want one in a weekend or another time on YOUR schedule, you probably should already have called to setup an appointment if you want to see the Washington State @ Oregon State game in 10 days from now.
> 
> Oregon State Beavers fans with DirecTV are screwed this weekend _and_ next weekend if I look at the schedule, as their games in both those weekends are on PAC12 only.


Yep, installations are backed up for tomorrow and while I can get it done for the following week its not convenient for me, so yes I have to wait.

And yes, we're screwed two weeks in a row....I sold my tickets to the [email protected] and now I can't even watch it in person.


----------



## WebTraveler

kick4fun said:


> So please forgive me, I really thought a few of my last posts were Pac12 related and I certainly respect the MODS for doing what needs to be done. I made the switch to DISH because of Pac12.. I really felt you have sort of dared some of us to make it happen, well I did and will have full access to the Pac12 in the morning.. Quick turnover I think..
> That being said, Glad I made the move because this is what I just read.. http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/9/...directv-larry-scott-says-a-deal-looks-far-off


Let us know how it looks....I am following you. Like you held out hoping and just plain tired of the b.s.

Will they use all Directv wiring making it an east install?


----------



## kick4fun

WebTraveler said:


> Yep, installations are backed up for tomorrow and while I can get it done for the following week its not convenient for me, so yes I have to wait.
> 
> And yes, we're screwed two weeks in a row....I sold my tickets to the [email protected] and now I can't even watch it in person.


oh no... I wish I could give you my in-laws Comcast password, but obviously that's not feasible.. OSU has been playing great and while I root for the Cougs, I am convinced that both Oregon and OSU will whip the Cougs badly.. Nevertheless, I am excited to watch more than just football.. The cool thing is I can watch Football, Basketball, Soccer, Volleyball and of course Field Hockey.. Gotta love the Pac12!


----------



## Laxguy

WebTraveler said:


> Yep, installations are backed up for tomorrow and while I can get it done for the following week its not convenient for me, so yes I have to wait.
> 
> And yes, we're screwed two weeks in a row....I sold my tickets to the [email protected] and now I can't even watch it in person.


"Screwed"?? Really? Over not having a couple of college games in your home one year?

If folks could back away from hyperbole, and let this calm down, it could help. Help keep the discussions more palatable, probably have no effect on getting Pac12 onto DIRECTV®. :eek2:

I am enjoying the Stanford-Washington game on ESPN HD at the moment.


----------



## WebTraveler

kick4fun said:


> oh no... I wish I could give you my in-laws Comcast password, but obviously that's not feasible.. OSU has been playing great and while I root for the Cougs, I am convinced that both Oregon and OSU will whip the Cougs badly.. Nevertheless, I am excited to watch more than just football.. The cool thing is I can watch Football, Basketball, Soccer, Volleyball and of course Field Hockey.. Gotta love the Pac12!


In the Pac 12 it's always competitive so anything can happen in any game.

Please post about the install experience and how the Pac 12 looks later. Did you get the Hopper and the slingbox add on? Let me know if the wiring has to be tweaked at all to accommodate Dish.


----------



## WebTraveler

to each their own.



Laxguy said:


> "Screwed"?? Really? Over not having a couple of college games in your home one year?
> 
> If folks could back away from hyperbole, and let this calm down, it could help. Help keep the discussions more palatable, probably have no effect on getting Pac12 onto DIRECTV®. :eek2:
> 
> I am enjoying the Stanford-Washington game on ESPN HD at the moment.


----------



## kick4fun

WebTraveler said:


> Let us know how it looks....I am following you. Like you held out hoping and just plain tired of the b.s.
> 
> Will they use all Directv wiring making it an east install?


6 WEEKS LATER!!! I did hold out as long as I could.. Lots of fan boys here, many deleted posts and insults from Directv Booth employees and finally lots of discussion that wasn't related to Pac12 Networks.. That said, I do finally get what I've wanted all along, PAC12.. Seems that there are many others who have expressed the same with many stomping on our emotions.. As I have read and heard, the PAC12 Networks looks great in HD and offers lots of good programming.. I will be happy to express and share my experiences tomorrow when I get the install. My house is ready because I'm sure they will use all the existing wiring.. GO PAC12!!!!!!!


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> "Screwed"?? Really? Over not having a couple of college games in your home one year?
> 
> If folks could back away from hyperbole, and let this calm down, it could help. Help keep the discussions more palatable, probably have no effect on getting Pac12 onto DIRECTV®. :eek2:
> 
> I am enjoying the Stanford-Washington game on ESPN HD at the moment.


See, it's just this junk I'm so tired of reading.. The disdain for anything related to others excitement for a network we believe is worth something, is tiresome.. I have been able to stream this network since its inception and I can tell you it is without a doubt awesome.. Football, Soccer, Volleyball and many other sports related activities.. How fun.. I hope someday you can enjoy the same excitement.. Happy Trails!!


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> "Screwed"?? Really? Over not having a couple of college games in your home one year?
> 
> If folks could back away from hyperbole, and let this calm down, it could help. Help keep the discussions more palatable, probably have no effect on getting Pac12 onto DIRECTV®. :eek2:
> 
> I am enjoying the Stanford-Washington game on ESPN HD at the moment.


And what he said if you were really listening, was that OSU will be on the Pac12 Networks 2 weeks in a row.. He loves Oregon State and they are contenders this year.. OSU beat #13 Wisconsin and also #19 UCLA and are now ranked #18 this week.. Pretty nice start.. If I was an OSU fan, I wouldn't want to miss any game after that.. So yes, some are pretty jacked about their team.. WHY QUESTION HIS ENTHUSIASM? Lame.. Calm down you say??? Please!


----------



## FlyBono24

This is a bunch of bull$hit... they just need to get the goddamn deal done already. This seems like the best season my team (UCLA) is having in YEARS... and I can't even see the games because they are on this network.

And yes, like someone mentioned earlier, the MAIN reason I'm with DTV is because of their stranglehold on the NFL. If Sunday Ticket were available on any carrier, I'd switch over to Fios in a split second.


----------



## kick4fun

FlyBono24 said:


> This is a bunch of bull$hit... they just need to get the goddamn deal done already. This seems like the best season my team (UCLA) is having in YEARS... and I can't even see the games because they are on this network.
> 
> And yes, like someone mentioned earlier, the MAIN reason I'm with DTV is because of their stranglehold on the NFL. If Sunday Ticket were available on any carrier, I'd switch over to Fios in a split second.


I feel your pain.. Just made the switch and having the install today.. The Cougars are not playing at the level the Bruins are, but we have a new coach and a new level of enthusiasm.. I just couldn't wait any longer.. I must see coach Mike Leach.. GO PAC12!


----------



## Mike Bertelson

One common problem here is berating other members for their choices & enthusiasm in channels. If you have nothing to say about Pac-12 sports then move on. DO NOT attack anyone for their choices in channels. I’m tired of the bickering and it’s gonna stop. 

Discuss the topic and NOT other members.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## WebTraveler

Dish install is set. Bye bye Directv.

Larry Scott said last night at the Stanford - UW game that any agreement with Directv is not even looking close....that's enough to pull the plug for once and all. 

I really tried to give Directv the benefit of the doubt. I did. But Directv failed me.

Here we come Dish....coming back after five years away! (I guess a lesson in never say never!)


----------



## Carl Spock

Enjoy your new service, WebTraveler. You, too, kick4fun. Dish is a fine service provider.


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> Enjoy your new service, WebTraveler. You, too, kick4fun. Dish is a fine service provider.


Thanks .. Also DonM has decided to get Pac12 via the DISH.. So a few here have said we needed to jump ship, well we have heard and now are speaking out.. Enough waiting around, it's time to watch Pac12 Networks.


----------



## kick4fun

:icon_bb: :balloons:



WebTraveler said:


> Dish install is set. Bye bye Directv.
> 
> Larry Scott said last night at the Stanford - UW game that any agreement with Directv is not even looking close....that's enough to pull the plug for once and all.
> 
> I really tried to give Directv the benefit of the doubt. I did. But Directv failed me.
> 
> Here we come Dish....coming back after five years away! (I guess a lesson in never say never!)


----------



## sigma1914

WebTraveler said:


> ...
> 
> Larry Scott said last night at the Stanford - UW game ...


Speaking of the UW/Stanford game, UW winning pretty much knocks out Stanford from the BCS title. That's another plus for DirecTV, unfortunately. Looks like it's down to Oregon and Oregon State for national title implications. So far, Oregon's next 3 games are on national channels (ESPN & ESPN2). OSU/Arizona & OSU/WSU are on the P12 network this week & next with no others set, yet.


----------



## woj027

Does anyone know if either party has asked for or suggested at least that the Pac-12 Regional channels get put up as RSN's only? Just like the all the other RSN's out there.
Forget about the National feed right now. 
I know these are School specific channels for each region (OSU/UofO in OR, WSU/UofW in WA, etc) but at least those fans in the regions where they lost their RSN feed of these games (ROOT NW in OR and WA) can watch them again, and anyone who wants all the games can purchase the sports pack.

What does the National feed supply that someone with the sports pack wouldn't get? What does the National feed supply that a RSN wouldn't 'essentially' supply? 

If I'm understanding what Pac12 wants, its that they want all 7 channels on a basic teir, I'd love that. But how can that fly? I agree with DirecTV here, some people don't want to pay for me to watch my team. (I do take donations though) 

Just give us back what we used to have; our local (regional) team on our RSN! 

I know this will be an upgrade for us in Oregon and Washington who shared 1 channel for 4 teams, and down south in California you may not live in your school's zone, but at least you get to watch some Pac12 football!

argh!!


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> Speaking of the UW/Stanford game, UW winning pretty much knocks out Stanford from the BCS title. That's another plus for DirecTV, unfortunately. Looks like it's down to Oregon and Oregon State for national title implications. So far, Oregon's next 3 games are on national channels (ESPN & ESPN2). OSU/Arizona & OSU/WSU are on the P12 network this week & next with no others set, yet.


Don't count USC out... many one loss teams have bounced back.. It's much better to lose early then finish strong


----------



## Mariah2014

RSN rights were bought before the network started up so they could air those games when the network went live. Even directv received money for the rights they had in the northwest and Rocky mountain regions on Root Sports.


woj027 said:


> Does anyone know if either party has asked for or suggested at least that the Pac-12 Regional channels get put up as RSN's only? Just like the all the other RSN's out there.
> Forget about the National feed right now.
> I know these are School specific channels for each region (OSU/UofO in OR, WSU/UofW in WA, etc) but at least those fans in the regions where they lost their RSN feed of these games (ROOT NW in OR and WA) can watch them again, and anyone who wants all the games can purchase the sports pack.
> 
> What does the National feed supply that someone with the sports pack wouldn't get? What does the National feed supply that a RSN wouldn't 'essentially' supply?
> 
> If I'm understanding what Pac12 wants, its that they want all 7 channels on a basic teir, I'd love that. But how can that fly? I agree with DirecTV here, some people don't want to pay for me to watch my team. (I do take donations though)
> 
> Just give us back what we used to have; our local (regional) team on our RSN!
> 
> I know this will be an upgrade for us in Oregon and Washington who shared 1 channel for 4 teams, and down south in California you may not live in your school's zone, but at least you get to watch some Pac12 football!
> 
> argh!!


----------



## WebTraveler

sigma1914 said:


> Speaking of the UW/Stanford game, UW winning pretty much knocks out Stanford from the BCS title. That's another plus for DirecTV, unfortunately. Looks like it's down to Oregon and Oregon State for national title implications. So far, Oregon's next 3 games are on national channels (ESPN & ESPN2). OSU/Arizona & OSU/WSU are on the P12 network this week & next with no others set, yet.


Well, although I am a Beaver (and a Sun Devil) I would absolutely love it if the Beavers were in the national title hunt.....but I think it's way too early to be even mentioning that. We're 2-0 and had multiple weeks to prepare. I am not even ready to even be thinking that. Hey, if we make it to a bowl game fans will be thrilled after the past few years.


----------



## WebTraveler

I am sure everything has been discussed.....no way, however, that Directv is going to get a wholly different deal than any other provider. It's not going to happen. In time the Pac 12 loyal will drop Directv and life will go on. Whether that causes Directv to reverse course I have no idea. But for now they drew the line in the sand and Pac 12 has nothing to talk to them about.

How sad really. Directv was a sports leader. When a provider starts telling me that I really don't need the Pac 12 Network then that line has been drawn.



woj027 said:


> Does anyone know if either party has asked for or suggested at least that the Pac-12 Regional channels get put up as RSN's only? Just like the all the other RSN's out there.
> Forget about the National feed right now.
> I know these are School specific channels for each region (OSU/UofO in OR, WSU/UofW in WA, etc) but at least those fans in the regions where they lost their RSN feed of these games (ROOT NW in OR and WA) can watch them again, and anyone who wants all the games can purchase the sports pack.
> 
> What does the National feed supply that someone with the sports pack wouldn't get? What does the National feed supply that a RSN wouldn't 'essentially' supply?
> 
> If I'm understanding what Pac12 wants, its that they want all 7 channels on a basic teir, I'd love that. But how can that fly? I agree with DirecTV here, some people don't want to pay for me to watch my team. (I do take donations though)
> 
> Just give us back what we used to have; our local (regional) team on our RSN!
> 
> I know this will be an upgrade for us in Oregon and Washington who shared 1 channel for 4 teams, and down south in California you may not live in your school's zone, but at least you get to watch some Pac12 football!
> 
> argh!!


----------



## woj027

mshaw2715 said:


> RSN rights were bought before the network started up so they could air those games when the network went live. Even directv received money for the rights they had in the northwest and Rocky mountain regions on Root Sports.


I didn't know that, but it still doesn't change anything, if anything, I suppose I'm due some of that money that was paid for those rights, since my bill didn't drop because of that change.

But, I don't think it changes my point. Make a deal with Pac-12 Regionals!


----------



## kick4fun

WebTraveler said:


> I am sure everything has been discussed.....no way, however, that Directv is going to get a wholly different deal than any other provider. It's not going to happen. In time the Pac 12 loyal will drop Directv and life will go on. Whether that causes Directv to reverse course I have no idea. But for now they drew the line in the sand and Pac 12 has nothing to talk to them about.
> 
> How sad really. Directv was a sports leader. When a provider starts telling me that I really don't need the Pac 12 Network then that line has been drawn.


My feelings doubled.. One can make the case all they want about how Directv is making sound decisions by not caving into the Pac12 demands, but when I see the other carriers grabbing it and feel insulted, I bolt.. It's quite alright. I'm happy to give my business to a provider that wants to carry Pac12 because I feel every game and every moment is priceless. Sure there are some fun upsets this year already, why miss out on that...


----------



## smitbret

kick4fun said:


> Great.. If that's their stance, I will go ahead and schedule my DISH install for next weekend... I'll miss my Sunday Ticket, but I guess I'll watch my team via the Redzone..


Enjoy watching your ESPNU games in SD.


----------



## kick4fun

smitbret said:


> Enjoy watching your ESPNU games in SD.


 I never watch that channel, but I am really excited to start watching Pac12 Networks in less than an hour.. WAHOO :goodjob:


----------



## David Ortiz

kick4fun said:


> I never watch that channel, but I am really excited to start watching Pac12 Networks in less than an hour.. WAHOO :goodjob:


There are quite a few Pac-12 men's basketball games that are scheduled to air on ESPNU.


----------



## kick4fun

David Ortiz said:


> There are quite a few Pac-12 men's basketball games that are scheduled to air on ESPNU.


I would venture to say more will be on regular ESPN and also FX.. Maybe this whole thing is a gamble, but I'm guessing that Pac12 Networks may show a lot of Basketball games.


----------



## David Ortiz

kick4fun said:


> I would venture to say more will be on regular ESPN and also FX.. Maybe this whole thing is a gamble, but I'm guessing that Pac12 Networks may show a lot of Basketball games.


The TV schedules are available now, so there is no need to guess. All 12 teams have at least two appearances on ESPNU and most have four or more. WSU has 24 games on Pac-12 Networks while UCLA has only 14.


----------



## sigma1914

David Ortiz said:


> The TV schedules are available now, so there is no need to guess. All 12 teams have at least two appearances on ESPNU and most have four or more. WSU has 24 games on Pac-12 Networks while UCLA has only 14.


Link please sir? I'd like to see Arizona's schedule.


----------



## WebTraveler

smitbret said:


> Enjoy watching your ESPNU games in SD.


Since many more games that I want to watch are on Pac 12 Network versus ESPNU I think I still come out ahead. And even if there is a game I want to see I still have the Pac 12....so you know what? I could care less!


----------



## Mariah2014

http://www.arizonawildcats.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/ariz-m-baskbl-sched.html
At least 11 games on pac 12 neworks plus some of the tournament games from the pac 12 tournament will be pac 12 network bound too.


sigma1914 said:


> Link please sir? I'd like to see Arizona's schedule.


----------



## David Ortiz

sigma1914 said:


> Link please sir? I'd like to see Arizona's schedule.





mshaw2715 said:


> http://www.arizonawildcats.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/ariz-m-baskbl-sched.html


Or go to pac-12.com and click on Schedule & Results and choose school and sport and see the whole schedule including TV network without having to click on each game.


----------



## Mariah2014

Schedule is not complete tv wise there and you have narrow it down to what you want as well. Pac 12 is slow at updating that schedule. 


David Ortiz said:


> Or go to pac-12.com and click on Schedule & Results and choose school and sport and see the whole schedule including TV network without having to click on each game.


----------



## David Ortiz

mshaw2715 said:


> Schedule is not complete tv wise there and you have narrow it down to what you want as well. Pac 12 is slow at updating that schedule.


I just hate that they built a table for the schedule but didn't put a column for TV network.


----------



## sigma1914

David Ortiz said:


> Or go to pac-12.com and click on Schedule & Results and choose school and sport and see the whole schedule including TV network without having to click on each game.


Thanks - I also found this for those interested:


> The Pac-12 men's basketball package includes 150 games aired on the Pac-12 Networks, 47 on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU (including the Pac-12 Tournament championship game on ESPN), 22 games on FSN, and two nationally on CBS. Additional appearances will be made through other conference television agreements and various in-season tournaments.


Full schedule and article: http://pac-12.com/Sports/Basketball...ces-2012-13-men-s-basketball-TV-schedule.aspx


----------



## WebTraveler

sigma1914 said:


> Thanks - I also found this for those interested:
> 
> Full schedule and article: http://pac-12.com/Sports/Basketball...ces-2012-13-men-s-basketball-TV-schedule.aspx


I counted 30 on ESPNU and 150 on Pac 12 Network.

Stay w/Directv and 30 in HD on ESPNU and none on Pac 12 Network.

Go to Dish and get 150 in HD on Pac 12 Network and 30 in SD on ESPNU (plus all the other games).

none of the options is perfect...but at least those 30 I can at least see the game!!!! if Directv gave me SD it would a start, but they don't. So I can get 30 of 180 with Directv and 180 of 180 w/Dish, albeit 30 in SD. But watch some of those ESPNU games will migrate to ESPN or ESPN2 by the time they get on there.....


----------



## woj027

Does anyone have a link to refer to that states what the "similar offer" is that Pac12 is offering DirecTV?

I found this for Dish.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_21498582/dish-network-customers-able-watch-pac-12-television
"Dish has put the Pac-12 channels on its America's Top 120+ package and above for customers who live in the six states with a conference school. It's available nationwide in the Multi-Sport Pack for $9 per month."

So for That offer to be "similar" DirecTV would put the Regional Channels and National on Choice extra and above? 
Would it be all the regional channels or just the local RSN? 
Would someone who lives in Virginia have to add the sports pack to get all 7? or will the National be in Choice Extra and above and the 6 in the sports pack?

If I'm thinking about this correctly, really the hang up is on Pac-12 National being outside of the Sports Pack and in a basic tier? This is really frustrating.

I can't tell what similar is  :nono:


----------



## Mariah2014

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...of-directv-deal-anytime-soon-and-other-notes/


> Since then, I've followed up with industry contacts and become even more convinced that a summertime shakeup in DTV's corporate structure played a central role in the negotiations going sideways just before the season.


and for those with charter.


> But I get the distinct sense that Charter, at the very least, is following DTV's lead.


Which leads me to believe that could have been why they never picked up csn nw either.


----------



## kick4fun

David Ortiz said:


> The TV schedules are available now, so there is no need to guess. All 12 teams have at least two appearances on ESPNU and most have four or more. WSU has 24 games on Pac-12 Networks while UCLA has only 14.


24 sounds good to me.. all in HD


----------



## kick4fun

Ok, watching the Pac12 SD feed of the OSU and Stanford soccer match.. Looks good to me.. ! The WSU soccer game starts in 45 minutes in HD. LOVE THE PAC12!!!


----------



## sigma1914

WebTraveler said:


> I counted 30 on ESPNU and 150 on Pac 12 Network.
> 
> Stay w/Directv and 30 in HD on ESPNU and none on Pac 12 Network.
> 
> Go to Dish and get 150 in HD on Pac 12 Network and 30 in SD on ESPNU (plus all the other games).
> 
> none of the options is perfect...but at least those 30 I can at least see the game!!!! if Directv gave me SD it would a start, but they don't. So I can get 30 of 180 with Directv and 180 of 180 w/Dish, albeit 30 in SD. But watch some of those ESPNU games will migrate to ESPN or ESPN2 by the time they get on there.....


Please understand I wasn't trying to sway you or anyone either way. I've had conversations with kicks4fun and he'll tell you I support those switching for the P12 Network. It's your money to give to a company that will give you what you want.


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> Please understand I wasn't trying to sway you or anyone either way. I've had conversations with kicks4fun and he'll tell you I support those switching for the P12 Network. It's your money to give to a company that will give you what you want.


I concur, you have really been supportive of those who want to switch.. That being said, after hearing all the bad things of quality on DISH etc, the SD looks really good and the HD is about the same.. I'm watching Pac12 right now and love it! Fort those who stay with Directv, that's cool too.. Bottom line, get what you need and want. Fort me, the Pac12 is very important..


----------



## Mariah2014

Field hockey will be live on Dish network as well. Pac 12 bay area feed of that game is on an alternate station and in HD no less.


----------



## kick4fun

OK.... WSU Womens soccer vs. Utah right now in HD.. LOOKS REALLY GOOD!!! No joke, this HD is pretty awesome.. WAHOO


----------



## woj027

kick4fun said:


> OK.... WSU Womens soccer vs. Utah right now in HD.. LOOKS REALLY GOOD!!! No joke, this HD is pretty awesome.. WAHOO


So you have Dish now? do you get all 6 regional feeds in HD?


----------



## Mariah2014

No. the national feed is HD for live sports and alternate feeds come up for live sports and are in HD too. the regional feeds will be hd via pac 12 now very soon with Dish Network.


woj027 said:


> So you have Dish now? do you get all 6 regional feeds in HD?


----------



## kick4fun

woj027 said:


> So you have Dish now? do you get all 6 regional feeds in HD?


What he said..


----------



## woj027

mshaw2715 said:


> No. the national feed is HD for live sports and alternate feeds come up for live sports and are in HD too. the regional feeds will be hd via pac 12 now very soon with Dish Network.


I'm confused.

From how I read that, the Pac-12 National is in HD -Great.

Alternate feeds in HD for live sports - are you calling the Regional Channels alternate feeds when they only show HD sports (game only), but are not 24/7 HD for other programming?

Regional Feeds will be in HD soon. - Is this to say the above, essentially all 7 will be 24/7 HD, but right now they are "game only - HD"?

++++++++++++

So that's the deal Pac-12 is offering DirecTV? National in HD, the alternate feeds (6 regional) in HD for live sports. and eventually full time Regional HD? Further the National is on a lower tier and the regional are essentially RSN's?


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> I concur, you have really been supportive of those who want to switch.. That being said, after hearing all the bad things of quality on DISH etc, the SD looks really good and the HD is about the same.. I'm watching Pac12 right now and love it! Fort those who stay with Directv, that's cool too.. Bottom line, get what you need and want. Fort me, the Pac12 is very important..


In spite of my writing of your hyperbole and incessant posting about Pac12, I am all for anyone switching to whatever provider at any time. Just as long as it's a thought out process and that exaggerations or misrepresentations (inadvertent, I am sure!) don't lead to false conclusions for others.

Truly, I am happy for those who want to follow every game of their University's teams, and that there is an avenue now for that.


----------



## kick4fun

ok, so this is what Dish has.. One SD and one HD feed.. not sure which one is regional or national.. When the games begin, each alternate will open up in HD for the game...


----------



## woj027

kick4fun said:


> ok, so what DIsh had is this.. One SD and one HD feed.. not sure which one is regional or national.. When the games begin, each alternate will open up in HD for the game...


Wow, that sounds like a pretty limited offering, I wonder if that's what was "similarly" offered to DirecTV.


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> In spite of my writing of your hyperbole and incessant posting about Pac12, I am all for anyone switching to whatever provider at any time. Just as long as it's a thought out process and that exaggerations or misrepresentations (inadvertent, I am sure!) don't lead to false conclusions for others.
> 
> Truly, I am happy for those who want to follow every game of their University's teams, and that there is an avenue now for that.


But you see, that's how I have felt toward your postings.. But hey, to each their own.. It sounds like a few of us have finally started to realize Pac12 wasn't happening. The Quality is very good on Dish. In the end, it really comes down to programming.. This was a no brainer for me.. Maybe we can all put the back and forth to rest and hopefully Pac12 comes to Directv so that everyone can enjoy. Cheers!


----------



## kick4fun

woj027 said:


> Wow, that sounds like a pretty limited offering, I wonder if that's what was "similarly" offered to DirecTV.


I'm sure it was, but my thought is Directv may go in a different direction all together with the sports channels demanding more and more $$.. Pac12 Networks are a good product, but Directv has so much to consider with the Lakers, Sec etc.. Good luck!


----------



## James Long

For clarification:

What DISH has is the national feed on channel 413 with a HD feed (also on 413) that is used for selected events. It is not a 24/7 national feed (although there is a lot more in HD on PAC 12 than on any other DISH RSN other than Big10).

The alternate channels for PAC-12 are on channels 5453-5460 ... four SD feeds and four HD feeds. As I write this "WSOC: USC at Arizona St." and "WSOC: Oregon at Cal" are on the alts and "WSOC: Washington at Colorado" is on 413. (At 9pm ET/6pm CT there are three different volleyball matches, one on main and two on alts.)

Is there another game in progress that is being missed?

The "national" plus six regional mix feeds are designed for cable. The national feed will carry the most important games while the regionals will branch off to carry other games of interest to that region. Perhaps "down the road" there will be more variety on the seven channels but for now, PAC12 does not have enough conflicting content to put something different on all seven channels. A national feed and alts carries all the broadcast content they have.


----------



## donm

woj027 said:


> Wow, that sounds like a pretty limited offering, I wonder if that's what was "similarly" offered to DirecTV.


Even most of the cable providers don't offer the National and all 6 regional feeds. I think there are just a few cable providers that do offer all 7 feeds. Some do by giving the national and your regional feed and puts the rest in a sports tier or doesn't offer them at all. Each provider has a different setup. It doesn't sound like Directv would carry much more then the National and alts similar to Dish unless they were all in a stand alone package but you never know until the deal is done.


----------



## BusterAvis

Officially another month gone without a deal.
I wonder what Pac 12's strategy will be in October.
No deal in August, no deal in September, so let's see if they change their offer in October.

Will it be an October-Fest for Pac 12 fans with DirecTV?


----------



## Mariah2014

It is virtually safe to say it won't happen this year.


BusterAvis said:


> Officially another month gone without a deal.
> I wonder what Pac 12's strategy will be in October.
> No deal in August, no deal in September, so let's see if they change their offer in October.
> 
> Will it be an October-Fest for Pac 12 fans with DirecTV?


----------



## FlyBono24

BusterAvis said:


> Officially another month gone without a deal.
> I wonder what Pac 12's strategy will be in October.
> No deal in August, no deal in September, so let's see if they change their offer in October.
> 
> Will it be an October-Fest for Pac 12 fans with DirecTV?


Yup, looks like I'll be looking for an internet stream for tomorrow's UCLA game.

DirecTV, "Leader in sports", my ass...:nono2:


----------



## WebTraveler

Buster, give it up....Directv is not coming on board and Pac 12 is not going to alter the deal. They cannot w/o repercussions with the other distributors. Fact remains that the market price is clearly established. The deal is on the table that is the same with the other providers.

Don't you see - we are not important to Directv. Until/unless a large number of people switch to other providers - for this very reason - will Directv change it's stance.

There is a new Sheriff in town and he's Michael White. He doesn't care about anyone except himself and his executive team and the large compensation they get and his own ego. He cleaned house at Directv and everyone else be damned. While I certainly hope he tanks Directv to the tank, for the moment Wall Street likes what they see. He's hoping for a merger, however, and that I don't expect to happen.



BusterAvis said:


> Officially another month gone without a deal.
> I wonder what Pac 12's strategy will be in October.
> No deal in August, no deal in September, so let's see if they change their offer in October.
> 
> Will it be an October-Fest for Pac 12 fans with DirecTV?


----------



## kick4fun

WebTraveler said:


> Buster, give it up....Directv is not coming on board and Pac 12 is not going to alter the deal. They cannot w/o repercussions with the other distributors. Fact remains that the market price is clearly established. The deal is on the table that is the same with the other providers.
> 
> Don't you see - we are not important to Directv. Until/unless a large number of people switch to other providers - for this very reason - will Directv change it's stance.
> 
> There is a new Sheriff in town and he's Michael White. He doesn't care about anyone except himself and his executive team and the large compensation they get and his own ego. He cleaned house at Directv and everyone else be damned. While I certainly hope he tanks Directv to the tank, for the moment Wall Street likes what they see. He's hoping for a merger, however, and that I don't expect to happen.


And there are new Deputies...

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...of-directv-deal-anytime-soon-and-other-notes/
"Since then, I've followed up with industry contacts and become even more convinced that a summertime shakeup in DTV's corporate structure played a central role in the negotiations going sideways just before the season.

In particular, I'm referring to the departure of Derek Chang, the Executive VP for Content Strategy and Development, who is viewed as a tough but fair negotiator (and is also a Stanford alum)."

That is why I've decided, per the suggestions of Maartena, that we have to move on.. This isn't a knock on Directv, just that if you want programming you need to look elsewhere which it sounds like some of are finally doing so..


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> And there are new Deputies...
> 
> http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...of-directv-deal-anytime-soon-and-other-notes/
> "Since then, I've followed up with industry contacts and become even more convinced that a summertime shakeup in DTV's corporate structure played a central role in the negotiations going sideways just before the season.
> 
> In particular, I'm referring to the departure of Derek Chang, the Executive VP for Content Strategy and Development, who is viewed as a tough but fair negotiator (and is also a Stanford alum)."
> 
> That is why I've decided, per the suggestions of Maartena, that we have to move on.. This isn't a knock on Directv, just that if you want programming you need to look elsewhere which it sounds like some of are finally doing so..


Chang is still there until the end of the year according to reports.


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> Chang is still there until the end of the year according to reports.


I read that and I certainly don't know the scope of his influence, but one might think the new leadership wants to make their own decisions.


----------



## kick4fun

David Ortiz said:


> There are quite a few Pac-12 men's basketball games that are scheduled to air on ESPNU.


I can't help but really laugh at this.. I counted 3 games for the Cougs on ESPNU... 
http://www.wsucougars.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/wast-m-baskbl-sched.html
Only a couple of FX, but the rest on Pac12 Networks.. I'm happy to have the Pac12 in HD and watch every single game if I need to.


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> I can't help but really laugh at this.. I counted 3 games for the Cougs on ESPNU...
> http://www.wsucougars.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/wast-m-baskbl-sched.html
> Only a couple of FX, but the rest on Pac12 Networks.. I'm happy to have the Pac12 in HD and watch every single game if I need to.


They'd rather show good teams on the U, like Arizona.


----------



## kick4fun

:gott:


sigma1914 said:


> They'd rather show good teams on the U, like Arizona.


----------



## sdk009

sigma1914 said:


> They'd rather show good teams on the U, like Arizona.


Final from Tucson: Oregon St. 38
U of A 35

Sooo Close


----------



## sigma1914

sdk009 said:


> Final from Tucson: Oregon St. 38
> U of A 35
> 
> Sooo Close


We were talking basketball. UofA football just frustrates me too much. :lol:


----------



## kick4fun

"sigma1914" said:


> We were talking basketball. UofA football just frustrates me too much. :lol:


I watched the Arizona game as well last night.. The Hopper has PIP and I could see both that game and of course my WSU game. Both in beautiful HD and I thought Arizona looked really good.. Btw, their dark blue unis were cool. I love this Pac12 thing. I switched back and forth and thought it was so much fun.


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> I love this Pac12 thing.


*Finally! *At last you've admitted your passion.....


----------



## ajc68

For the second time in four weeks the P12Net had the better nightcap over ESPN (AZ vs OSU x 2). It's too bad for those football junkies that were in sports bars, or like to jump to the trending game, not to mention those that wanted to watch the game and couldn't. Half the P12 is currently ranked and there will be some great match-ups in the upcoming weeks. Not to mention the other great sports they're broadcasting.

Nevertheless, I'm sure some of the primary defenders of the faith will be here shortly, with their usual talking points, once again dissing the P12Net while praising DTV for not sending them and their fanboy co. into economic ruin. Funny we never hear them talk about the B1G network, which is forced on nearly everyone, let alone the dozens, if not hundreds, of additional channels that we're all forced to supplement, whether we want them or not. 

Being that the P12Net is on four of the five largest carriers, you have to wonder about the direction the sports leader is currently headed in. If DTV doesn't carry the new Lakers RSN, which I don't believe they will due to cost, it will be interesting to see how much of a shift toward TWC there is in the Los Angeles market, which, of course, was TWC's plan all along. It's going to be interesting to see how things shake out over the next 3-6 months.


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> *Finally! *At last you've admitted your passion.....


LOL.. Because it wasn't obvious before??..


----------



## woj027

James Long said:


> For clarification:
> 
> What DISH has is the national feed on channel 413 with a HD feed (also on 413) that is used for selected events. It is not a 24/7 national feed (although there is a lot more in HD on PAC 12 than on any other DISH RSN other than Big10).
> 
> The alternate channels for PAC-12 are on channels 5453-5460 ... four SD feeds and four HD feeds. As I write this "WSOC: USC at Arizona St." and "WSOC: Oregon at Cal" are on the alts and "WSOC: Washington at Colorado" is on 413. (At 9pm ET/6pm CT there are three different volleyball matches, one on main and two on alts.)
> 
> Is there another game in progress that is being missed?
> 
> The "national" plus six regional mix feeds are designed for cable. The national feed will carry the most important games while the regionals will branch off to carry other games of interest to that region. Perhaps "down the road" there will be more variety on the seven channels but for now, PAC12 does not have enough conflicting content to put something different on all seven channels. A national feed and alts carries all the broadcast content they have.


James - Thanks for the update. I'm just really disappointed that a deal hasn't been made yet. Now (this week) its going to get worse, because both will think they have the upper hand because there are *6* pac-12 teams in the top 25 (maybe a couple too many).


----------



## woj027

Anyone have any insight as to how advertisers might be responding to the Pac-12 about not being seen nationally in sports bars and the like?


----------



## kick4fun

woj027 said:


> James - Thanks for the update. I'm just really disappointed that a deal hasn't been made yet. Now (this week) its going to get worse, because both will think they have the upper hand because there are 5 pac-12 teams in the top 25 (maybe a couple too many).


 There are 6 now..  http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings


----------



## woj027

kick4fun said:


> There are 6 now..  http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings


Thanks.. Only 4 in the USA Today.

Great site for details on rankings.
http://www.pollspeak.com/


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> There are 6 now..  http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings


It depends on the poll.


----------



## sdk009

It's really time for D* to make a deal. Both the games this week feature ranked teams, UCLA @ Cal & WSU @ OSU.
Looking ahead to basketball, the PAC-12 Net will be carrying 11 games the first weekend of the season beginning Nov. 9.


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> It depends on the poll.


your right, but the AP poll holds a lot of weight (When factoring the BCS stuff).. Isn't this the first year we have playoffs or is it next year?


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> your right, but the AP poll holds a lot of weight (When factoring the BCS stuff).. Isn't this the first year we have playoffs or is it next year?


2014 I thought.


----------



## maartena

mshaw2715 said:


> Field hockey will be live on Dish network as well. Pac 12 bay area feed of that game is on an alternate station and in HD no less.


At least if DirecTV ever signs a deal that is similar to Dish, I can watch some of it. 

I'm not switching to Dish for it though, it's simply not that important to me. That said, I am getting more and more convinced that PAC12 will not be on DirecTV this season.


----------



## maartena

sigma1914 said:


> 2014 I thought.


Yes, 2014. The schedules for 2013/2014 are finalized by the end of 2012. That is.... the times, the stadiums, and the teams - not the TV schedules.

The schedules for 2012/2013 were finalized by late 2011, the decision for a playoff wasn't done till early 2012.


----------



## sum_random_dork

Like other posters have said, I too have lost faith in DirecTV adding Pac12 Networks anytime soon. Come Jan I will be shopping around to see what else is out there, once my Sunday Ticket is done this year (which I had already paid for) I don't have anything holding me to DirecTV.


----------



## kick4fun

sum_random_dork said:


> Like other posters have said, I too have lost faith in DirecTV adding Pac12 Networks anytime soon. Come Jan I will be shopping around to see what else is out there, once my Sunday Ticket is done this year (which I had already paid for) I don't have anything holding me to DirecTV.


Honestly, I am pleasantly surprised how much I like the Hopper and Dish. That said, more importantly I can watch all the Pac12 games in HD and very good coverage.. I agree that I don't see Pac12 and Directv forming any sort of relationship any time soon. Some have mentioned that there will be some basketball games on ESPNU, but a good majority on the Pac12 Networks. Good Luck!


----------



## woj027

fingers crossed for deal soon!


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> (That fair deal is supposedly the rumored 90 cents per subscriber that fits right down the line with the other big college sports conference network, the BTN).


That "fair deal"?? Almost a buck?? Do you have some interest in Pac12 besides being a fan?

What is the source of your info re the Big Ten?


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> That "fair deal"?? Almost a buck?? Do you have some interest in Pac12 besides being a fan?
> 
> What is the source of your info re the Big Ten?


 That was taken from the link...
http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/10/7/3470518/pac-12-network-directv-larry-scott


----------



## widmark

kick4fun said:


> Pac12 is doing what the Big10 and SEC have been doing for awhile.. The payoff they get from Fox and ESPN have raised enough money for the schools to re-invest in their athletic facilities.


With that kind of philosophy, maybe we'll all "get lucky" and our kids sports teams will decide to sell tickets to games and shut out parents from getting them if they don't get their demands met for equipment and profits.

Nobody is giving kudos to the Big Ten or the SEC for their big money wins. True, the conferences would be irresponsible not to obtain funding for tv rights. But obtaining funding and generating billions, and forcing blackouts if financial goals aren't met, means Larry Scott has lost all perspective, and needs to wander off to professional sports where there are no publicly funded institutions depending on him to provide access to everybody.


----------



## kick4fun

"widmark" said:


> With that kind of philosophy, maybe we'll all "get lucky" and our kids sports teams will decide to sell tickets to games and shut out parents from getting them if they don't get their demands met for equipment and profits.
> 
> Nobody is giving kudos to the Big Ten or the SEC for their big money wins. True, the conferences would be irresponsible not to obtain funding for tv rights. But obtaining funding and generating billions, and forcing blackouts if financial goals aren't met, means Larry Scott has lost all perspective, and needs to wander off to professional sports where there are no publicly funded institutions depending on him to provide access to everybody.


Forcing blackouts? Please rethink that because that's just not true. Its available to other providers.
To answer your other statement about public institutions.. These universities receive less and less money from public funds, ie tax dollars. The idea of having public institutions is to create an opportunity for students to receive an education. This had nothing to do with athletics. The scope of university athletics has changed so much in the last 20 years. It would be crazy for Larry Scott to give the product away, thus he has an amount he thinks will pay for his broadcast as well as staying competitive. If Directv doesn't like the demands, well so be it. If you want to petition, do so with Directv as well.


----------



## sum_random_dork

widmark said:


> With that kind of philosophy, maybe we'll all "get lucky" and our kids sports teams will decide to sell tickets to games and shut out parents from getting them if they don't get their demands met for equipment and profits.
> 
> Nobody is giving kudos to the Big Ten or the SEC for their big money wins. True, the conferences would be irresponsible not to obtain funding for tv rights. But obtaining funding and generating billions, and forcing blackouts if financial goals aren't met, means Larry Scott has lost all perspective, and needs to wander off to professional sports where there are no publicly funded institutions depending on him to provide access to everybody.


You obviously have an issue with Larry Scott, but Larry Scott is doing exactly what the schools wanted him to do. Go out and get a better deal for them to help support all their athletic programs. It's exactly what the B1G10 and SEC do. You're request to sign an online petition won't accomplish much....remember 4 of the 5 largest providers already have Pac 12. Where I live every major provider besides DirecTV, ATT Uverse, and Suddenlink already carry the channel. Of that list, only DirecTV has any real customer #s to matter. There have been many posts about the cost per sub that Pac12 has asked for, if you find that's unfair that's fine.

FYI-Suddenlink is a member of the NTCT so I am sure if they want to carry the channel everything is already in place, as other members are carrying the Pac12 Network becuase the Pac12 Network signed a deal with their group.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

widmark said:


> Nobody is giving kudos to the Big Ten or the SEC for their big money wins. True, the conferences would be irresponsible not to obtain funding for tv rights. But obtaining funding and generating billions, and forcing blackouts if financial goals aren't met, means Larry Scott has lost all perspective, and needs to wander off to professional sports where there are no publicly funded institutions depending on him to provide access to everybody.


Preposterous.

Larry Scott's mandate is to get at least as good a deal for the Pac12 as the Big10. And if the carriers resist, I say, hold out.

I also ask, how is ND a 9-pt favorite over the Cardinal?


----------



## James Long

A reminder ...
*Links to online petitions or calls for class action lawsuits are not allowed.*

Instructions on where to find a petition and/or encouragement to sign such will be treated as a link. Please follow the forum rules and leave petitions OFF of our forums.


----------



## kick4fun

Pac12 Networks lands another carrier, just not Directv..

http://www.dtvusaforum.com/content/928-pac-12-vs-directv-no-deal-yet.html


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> That was taken from the link...
> http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/10/7/3470518/pac-12-network-directv-larry-scott


Ah, so a Pac12 website is the one describing Scott's wants as "a fair deal". And saying "rumored" 90 cents.

Have you any connection with the Pac12 besides that of a fan or an alumnus?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Let's not start getting personal. Keep to the topic and not each other.

Mike


----------



## WebTraveler

Yes, I saw that, another good catch. Directv just has another focus right now, just wish they'd be honest about it - they have no intention whatsoever of carrying the Pac 12.

So far things with Dish are going quite well. I have fewer channels (missing many channels I didn't watch anyway or even care about) but pay substantially less (and save even more for the 1st 12 months), brand new equipment, and have access to Pac 12.

The ONLY things really missing are ESPNU HD and CSN Northwest (but Directv does not have it either, so this is a neutral comparison)

Overall happy.



kick4fun said:


> Pac12 Networks lands another carrier, just not Directv..
> 
> http://www.dtvusaforum.com/content/928-pac-12-vs-directv-no-deal-yet.html


----------



## kick4fun

WebTraveler said:


> Yes, I saw that, another good catch. Directv just has another focus right now, just wish they'd be honest about it - they have no intention whatsoever of carrying the Pac 12.
> 
> So far things with Dish are going quite well. I have fewer channels (missing many channels I didn't watch anyway or even care about) but pay substantially less (and save even more for the 1st 12 months), brand new equipment, and have access to Pac 12.
> 
> The ONLY things really missing are ESPNU HD and CSN Northwest (but Directv does not have it either, so this is a neutral comparison)
> 
> Overall happy.


You know, If Directv had the Pac12, I probably wouldn't have made the switch. But that being said, I too am satisfied for now with Dish. At least we have access to more than just football games. I really like the recap games in 60 seconds as well.


----------



## sdk009

I still don't get D*'s position on this. If indeed the $.90 figure is accurate, and is in line with other sports nets & what other carriers are paying, what's the hang-up?
A PPV on a per game basis doesn't work, because of basketball. 
Who's going to pay an extra fee to see Wofford-Colorado or Willamette at Utah on 11/9? That's just ridiculous and D* is just offering up something that they know is not palatable. Why then would they clear carriage space for something NOBODY is going to subscribe to. I don't get it and its very frustrating to read that D* has become so obstinate about adding sports programming.


----------



## Laxguy

IF 90 cents is correct, I sure as hell don't want my bill to increase by that plus a markup! I get all the Pac12 I need, and most of what I want already. It helps that I don't watch BB until March.


----------



## kick4fun

sdk009 said:


> I still don't get D*'s position on this. If indeed the $.90 figure is accurate, and is in line with other sports nets & what other carriers are paying, what's the hang-up?
> A PPV on a per game basis doesn't work, because of basketball.
> Who's going to pay an extra fee to see Wofford-Colorado or Willamette at Utah on 11/9? That's just ridiculous and D* is just offering up something that they know is not palatable. Why then would they clear carriage space for something NOBODY is going to subscribe to. I don't get it and its very frustrating to read that D* has become so obstinate about adding sports programming.


I totally agree. Some will argue that they are willing to pay 90cents for Big10, Root Sports and others, but not Pac12. They will try to convince others that Pac12 doesn't have a following and Directv can do no wrong.. I shrug my shoulders.. :nono2:


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> I totally agree. Some will argue that they are willing to pay 90cents for Big10, Root Sports and others, but not Pac12. They will try to convince others that Pac12 doesn't have a following and Directv can do no wrong.. I shrug my shoulders.. :nono2:


Of course! But I have never seen a credible source for what's paid to Big10 or "others".

And DIRECTV does make mistakes, and there are clearly those who are frantic for Pac12, but entry is denied when the price is too high. I'd like to see it, but not at a big price.

Please do tell us if you have a connection with Pac12, or not.


----------



## bnwrx

sdk009 said:


> I still don't get D*'s position on this. If indeed the $.90 figure is accurate, and is in line with other sports nets & what other carriers are paying, what's the hang-up?
> A PPV on a per game basis doesn't work, because of basketball.
> *Who's going to pay an extra fee to see Wofford-Colorado or Willamette at Utah on 11/9? * That's just ridiculous and D* is just offering up something that they know is not palatable. Why then would they clear carriage space for something NOBODY is going to subscribe to. I don't get it and its very frustrating to read that D* has become so obstinate about adding sports programming.


Maybe you answered you own question here...How many of the millions who would be charged that $.90, would actually watch that or many of the other games on PAC12? A few games this Fall in football(already concluded by the way) have not been available and some basketball games this winter, which won't be on another network is all we've missed. Like it or not it is a numbers game. I doubt few outside of the conference are interested in PAC12 volleyball or any other sport other than football or basketball. There just isn't an attraction to it yet you would have us all pay for this network. DTV is still in talks. I feel eventually this channel will be on the system, but until that time, despite how passionate some are about its carriage, most in this country could care less about it.


----------



## sdk009

bnwrx said:


> Maybe you answered you own question here...How many of the millions who would be charged that $.90, would actually watch that or many of the other games on PAC12? A few games this Fall in football(already concluded by the way) have not been available and some basketball games this winter, which won't be on another network is all we've missed. Like it or not it is a numbers game. I doubt few outside of the conference are interested in PAC12 volleyball or any other sport other than football or basketball. There just isn't an attraction to it yet you would have us all pay for this network. DTV is still in talks. I feel eventually this channel will be on the system, but until that time, despite how passionate some are about its carriage, most in this country could care less about it.


Three questions then: 
1) Why have all the other carriers nationwide agreed to the $.90 but not D*?
2) What makes the PAC-12 less desirable nationwide than the Big 10 Net (if what we are lead to believe that the rights fees paid for the Big 10 are comparable to what the PAC-12 is asking)? 
I could care less about Big 10 olympic sports, but they're shown and since the PAC 12 has been far more successful in these sports than the Big 10, there is even less of an attraction than those of the PAC 12.

3) Why does D* appear to be more like what Dish used to be by passing on sports channels and now Dish is signing them?


----------



## sigma1914

sdk009 said:


> Three questions then:
> 1) Why have all the other carriers nationwide agreed to the $.90 but not D*?
> 2) What makes the PAC-12 less desirable nationwide than the Big 10 Net (if what we are lead to believe that the rights fees paid for the Big 10 are comparable to what the PAC-12 is asking)?
> I could care less about Big 10 olympic sports, but they're shown and since the PAC 12 has been far more successful in these sports than the Big 10, there is even less of an attraction than those of the PAC 12.
> 
> 3) Why does D* appear to be more like what Dish used to be by passing on sports channels and now Dish is signing them?


1.) Every carrier doesn't have it.
2.) It's not always about you.
3.) Has Dish signed any NY sports stations? Why can't they sign them like every other carrier that has?


----------



## stevester23

bnwrx said:


> Maybe you answered you own question here...How many of the millions who would be charged that $.90, would actually watch that or many of the other games on PAC12? A few games this Fall in football(already concluded by the way) have not been available and some basketball games this winter, which won't be on another network is all we've missed. Like it or not it is a numbers game. I doubt few outside of the conference are interested in PAC12 volleyball or any other sport other than football or basketball. There just isn't an attraction to it yet you would have us all pay for this network. DTV is still in talks. I feel eventually this channel will be on the system, but until that time, despite how passionate some are about its carriage, most in this country could care less about it.


I sure there are channels that I pay much more than .90 cents that I never watch. Until we go to a true a la carte system (not likely to happen anytime soon), we will all pay for channels we seldom, if ever watch. I have not watched a Viacom channel in years, but I'm almost certain that since the last agreement I will be paying more.


----------



## sdk009

sigma1914 said:


> 1.) Every carrier doesn't have it.
> 2.) It's not always about you.
> 3.) Has Dish signed any NY sports stations? Why can't they sign them like every other carrier that has?


1) I meant all carriers that have has agreed
3) Ask Dish, because I dont' know nor do I care (see #2 below).

2) It is about me because I'm the customer (first rule of sales and service).


----------



## sigma1914

sdk009 said:


> ...
> 2) It is about me because I'm the customer (first rule of sales and service).


So, DirecTV has to add it because you want it? :lol:


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

stevester23 said:


> I sure there are channels that I pay much more than .90 cents that I never watch. Until we go to a true a la carte system (not likely to happen anytime soon), we will all pay for channels we seldom, if ever watch. I have not watched a Viacom channel in years, but I'm almost certain that since the last agreement I will be paying more.


Will be interested in your take in a couple of years, when Univision will ask for and receive 1.50 a month.

****************************************
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...n-nights-last-week-among-adults-18-34/151205/

Univision out-delivered one or more of the English-language Broadcast Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX) on Five out of Seven Nights Last Week among Adults 18-34

Univision is the #2 Network among Adults 18-34 during the 10 p.m. Hour Monday- Friday
****************************************


----------



## sdk009

sigma1914 said:


> So, DirecTV has to add it because you want it? :lol:


If they want to keep me as a customer :money: then yes


----------



## Laxguy

@ sdk

What evidence have you as to the fees paid by other carriers for any of the sports "conglomerates"? (i.e., Pac12, Big10, whatever). Some folks speak of 90 cents as being a given.


----------



## Carl Spock

* stops in to check out the thread for the first time in a week or two *

_Jeez, things are as ugly as before._

* leaves *


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> Of course! But I have never seen a credible source for what's paid to Big10 or "others".
> 
> And DIRECTV does make mistakes, and there are clearly those who are frantic for Pac12, but entry is denied when the price is too high. I'd like to see it, but not at a big price.
> 
> Please do tell us if you have a connection with Pac12, or not.


:shrug::shrug:


----------



## kick4fun

Carl Spock said:


> * stops in to check out the thread for the first time in a week or two *
> 
> _Jeez, things are as ugly as before._
> 
> * leaves *


I'm with ya.. It's getting ridiculous..


----------



## Sandra

Personally I would like to see DirecTV move their line in the sand back a little further so they come to an agreement and get these darn Pac-12 channels on the air. I pay so much for sports right now, I honestly do not care if my bill goes up because they meet the demands of the Pac-12 networks.

That's my opinion.


Sandra


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> Of course! But I have never seen a credible source for what's paid to Big10 or "others".
> 
> And DIRECTV does make mistakes, and there are clearly those who are frantic for Pac12, but entry is denied when the price is too high. I'd like to see it, but not at a big price.
> 
> Please do tell us if you have a connection with Pac12, or not.


What evidence do you have the price is too high? Please tell us of your Directv connections? Are you tight with Mike White?


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> @ sdk
> 
> What evidence have you as to the fees paid by other carriers for any of the sports "conglomerates"? (i.e., Pac12, Big10, whatever). Some folks speak of 90 cents as being a given.


Some folks keep saying Directv is being fair.


----------



## sdk009

Laxguy said:


> @ sdk
> 
> What evidence have you as to the fees paid by other carriers for any of the sports "conglomerates"? (i.e., Pac12, Big10, whatever). Some folks speak of 90 cents as being a given.


That's what I've seen in published reports, I have no idea if its the right fee or not.

Here's a list of 2010 carriage fees from the AVS Fourm:
What Cable Networks Get From Carriers 
(2010, Per Subscriber, Per Month)

ESPN/ESPN HD $4.58
Fox Sports Net $2.37
Starz $ 2.03
Showtime: $ 1.59
RSNs: $0.20-$2.15
TNT $ 0.99
Disney Channel $0.88 (commercial free)
NFL Network $0.80
Fox News Channel $ 0.58
HDNet $ 0.55
USA $ 0.55
ESPN2 $ 0.54
MGM HD $ 0.53
CNN & Headline News $ 0.51
TBS $ 0.49
Nickleodeon/Nick at Nite $0.44
HDNet Movies $ 0.44
FX $0.42
Big Ten Network $0.36
NHL Network $0.35
Fox College Sports $ 0.34
MTV $ 0.33
CNBC $ 0.29
Sundance $ 0.29
Versus $ 0.29
Lifetime $0.28
HD Theater $ 0.27
Universal HD $ 0.27
TCM $ 0.26
Versus $ 0.26
Discovery $ 0.25
Golf $ 0.25
A&E $ 0.25
MLB Network $ 0.24
AMC $ 0.23
TLC $ 0.23
Wealth TV $ 0.23
NBA TV $ 0.22
Family $0.22
History Channel $0.21
E! $ 0.20
Speed $ 0.20
National Geographic $ 0.20
Mountain West Sports Network $ 0.20
SyFy $ 0.20
Spike $ 0.20
Independent Film Channel $ 0.20
CBS College Sports $ 0.19
Fox Sports en Espanol $ 0.19
Bravo $ 0.19
Smithsonian Channel HD $ 0.19
ESPN Classic $ 0.18
ESPN News $ 0.17
Cartoon Network $ 0.17
ESPNU $ 0.16
BET $ 0.16
MSNBC $ 0.16
Fox Movie Channel $ 0.16
Fox Soccer Channel $ 0.16
TLC $ 0.16
ESPN Desportes $ 0.15
Tennis $0.15
SOAPnet $ 0.15
VH1 $ 0.15
Style $ 0.14
Comedy Central $0.14
HGTV $0.14
Fuel $ 0.14
Game Show Network $ 0. 12
WGN America $ 0.12
BBC America $ 0.11
Fox Business Network $0.11
Weather Channel $ 0.11
Biography $ 0.11
Travel $0.10
TV Land $0.10
Oxygen $ 0.09
Lifetime Movie Net $ 0.09
truTV $ 0.09
CMT $ 0.08
Food Network $ 0.08
Fuse $ 0.08
G4 $ 0.08
Animal Planet $ 0.07
Military $ 0.07
Bloomberg $ 0.06
Hallmark Channel $ 0.06
VH1 Classic $ 0.06
C-SPAN $ 0.5
TV Guide Network $0.02
Great American Country $ 0.02

Main Source: SNL Kagan Research


----------



## kick4fun

sdk009 said:


> That's what I've seen in published reports, I have no idea if its the right fee or not.
> 
> Here's a list of 2010 carriage fees from the AVS Fourm:
> What Cable Networks Get From Carriers
> (2010, Per Subscriber, Per Month)
> 
> ESPN/ESPN HD $4.58
> Fox Sports Net $2.37
> Starz $ 2.03
> Showtime: $ 1.59
> RSNs: $0.20-$2.15
> TNT $ 0.99
> Disney Channel $0.88 (commercial free)
> NFL Network $0.80
> Fox News Channel $ 0.58
> HDNet $ 0.55
> USA $ 0.55
> ESPN2 $ 0.54
> MGM HD $ 0.53
> CNN & Headline News $ 0.51
> TBS $ 0.49
> Nickleodeon/Nick at Nite $0.44
> HDNet Movies $ 0.44
> FX $0.42
> Big Ten Network $0.36
> NHL Network $0.35
> Fox College Sports $ 0.34
> MTV $ 0.33
> CNBC $ 0.29
> Sundance $ 0.29
> Versus $ 0.29
> Lifetime $0.28
> HD Theater $ 0.27
> Universal HD $ 0.27
> TCM $ 0.26
> Versus $ 0.26
> Discovery $ 0.25
> Golf $ 0.25
> A&E $ 0.25
> MLB Network $ 0.24
> AMC $ 0.23
> TLC $ 0.23
> Wealth TV $ 0.23
> NBA TV $ 0.22
> Family $0.22
> History Channel $0.21
> E! $ 0.20
> Speed $ 0.20
> National Geographic $ 0.20
> Mountain West Sports Network $ 0.20
> SyFy $ 0.20
> Spike $ 0.20
> Independent Film Channel $ 0.20
> CBS College Sports $ 0.19
> Fox Sports en Espanol $ 0.19
> Bravo $ 0.19
> Smithsonian Channel HD $ 0.19
> ESPN Classic $ 0.18
> ESPN News $ 0.17
> Cartoon Network $ 0.17
> ESPNU $ 0.16
> BET $ 0.16
> MSNBC $ 0.16
> Fox Movie Channel $ 0.16
> Fox Soccer Channel $ 0.16
> TLC $ 0.16
> ESPN Desportes $ 0.15
> Tennis $0.15
> SOAPnet $ 0.15
> VH1 $ 0.15
> Style $ 0.14
> Comedy Central $0.14
> HGTV $0.14
> Fuel $ 0.14
> Game Show Network $ 0. 12
> WGN America $ 0.12
> BBC America $ 0.11
> Fox Business Network $0.11
> Weather Channel $ 0.11
> Biography $ 0.11
> Travel $0.10
> TV Land $0.10
> Oxygen $ 0.09
> Lifetime Movie Net $ 0.09
> truTV $ 0.09
> CMT $ 0.08
> Food Network $ 0.08
> Fuse $ 0.08
> G4 $ 0.08
> Animal Planet $ 0.07
> Military $ 0.07
> Bloomberg $ 0.06
> Hallmark Channel $ 0.06
> VH1 Classic $ 0.06
> C-SPAN $ 0.5
> TV Guide Network $0.02
> Great American Country $ 0.02
> 
> Main Source: SNL Kagan Research


Oh SNAP... Wonderful.. Very cool..


----------



## Mariah2014

The price next to the MTN kind of shows you what Directv would except. They want the price to drop by 3/4 before picking it up. It is safe to say that just helps confirm they are miles apart.


----------



## sigma1914

Big Ten Network gets $0.36 and the Pac12 wants how much? $0.90? That's a big deal with 19 million customers.


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> The price next to the MTN kind of shows you what Directv would except. They want the price to drop by 3/4 before picking it up. It is safe to say that just helps confirm they are miles apart.


Pretty much.. Without taking sides on Directv vs Pac12, this just show's they really are very apart.


----------



## David Ortiz

sigma1914 said:


> Big Ten Network gets $0.36 and the Pac12 wants how much?


I believe that number is an average, which takes into consideration the number of in market and out of market subscribers.


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> Big Ten Network gets $0.36 and the Pac12 wants how much?


It's rumored to be 90 cents, but hey none of us really knows.. At this point its not a who's better discussion. I think we just see a bigger picture of maybe where they stand.. Hmm.. Interesting for sure.


----------



## sigma1914

David Ortiz said:


> I believe that number is an average, which takes into consideration the number of in market and out of market subscribers.


But the channel is national so why would market area matter?


----------



## David Ortiz

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-network-could-be-driving-force-for-expansion

The latter part of the article mentions cost per subscriber and in market vs out of market costs. It also relates that to conference expansion.


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> What evidence do you have the price is too high? Please tell us of your Directv connections? Are you tight with Mike White?


The 'evidence' is clear on its face: the price or terms are too high for DIRECTV® to add to their normally stellar sports offerings.

My sole connection with DIRECTV® is that of a (mostly) well satisfied customer. Not even a stockholder, darn, nor have I met Mike White.

Can you please answer my question as to your affiliation with Pac12?


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> The 'evidence' is clear on its face: the price or terms are too high for DIRECTV® to add to their normally stellar sports offerings.
> 
> My sole connection with DIRECTV® is that of a (mostly) well satisfied customer. Not even a stockholder, darn, nor have I met Mike White.
> 
> Can you please answer my question as to your affiliation with Pac12?


I have several times.. I am a fan who values watching my team play.. If it's not on Directv, I'm gone, (which I did for DISH)

There are others who feel the same. We've been over this so many times.. Do you really need to keep asking this over and over and over and over again... After Pac12 formed a network, most of the RSN's including Root Sports have no meaning to me, or many others for that matter.

So Directv doesn't agree to Pac12 demands.. Fine.. It doesn't mean it's not fair, just means Directv doesn't want it. GREAT. Now can we drop this. I will post from time to time about anything I might read in terms of rumors etc.

Please just let this be a fun and interesting dialogue about Pac12 Networks. No need to continue to ask what my affiliation is... I've stated several times, I am a Pac12 alumnus and fan. That's it..


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> Oh SNAP... Wonderful.. Very cool..


No need to quote a long post to add a few words....

Yes, and thanks, sdk. A good start, and may help to slow down certain speculation...... or not.


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> I have several times.. I am a fan who values watching my team play.. If it's not on Directv, I'm gone, (which I did for DISH)
> << Snipped bits out >>
> This isn't an open invitation to challenge me to my PAC12 allegiance.


Not challenging your allegiance as a fan; you're in the biggest/highest fan tier! 

What I've asked several times and you have ignored or deflected is: Have you any connection with Pac12 outside of your fandom?


----------



## sdk009

ESPN/ESPN HD $4.58
Fox Sports Net $2.37

RSNs: $0.20-$2.15

These numbers are two years old, and I'm sure some have changed, (all Viacom channels for example). I saw a story from last month that said ESPN is now getting $5.31 per sub. The PAC-12 must feel they fit somewhere between Fox Sports Net and the middle tier of the other RSN's. 
And we don't know if they want a graduated fee depending on in-market and out-of-market D* subs. Seeing this, though I feel $.90 is too much, and I'd be surprised if Dish is paying that much.


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> Not challenging your allegiance as a fan; you're in the biggest/highest fan tier!
> 
> What I've asked several times and you have ignored or deflected is: Have you any connection with Pac12 outside of your fandom?


I've not ignored.. :nono2:.. I've answered several times.
So there is no confusion... I AM A Washington State University Alumnus and fan who knows that if Directv signs on, every Pac12 team expects to earn $$$. So, that is the extent of my interest.. Capisce


----------



## kick4fun

sdk009 said:


> ESPN/ESPN HD $4.58
> Fox Sports Net $2.37
> 
> RSNs: $0.20-$2.15
> 
> These numbers are two years old, and I'm sure some have changed, (all Viacom channels for example). I saw a story from last month that said ESPN is now getting $5.31 per sub. The PAC-12 must feel they fit somewhere between Fox Sports Net and the middle tier of the other RSN's.
> And we don't know if they want a graduated fee depending on in-market and out-of-market D* subs. Seeing this, though I feel $.90 is too much, and I'd be surprised if Dish is paying that much.


Dish did make a deal with the exclusive signage in the stadiums.. I wonder how that impacted the price. Hmmm.


----------



## stevester23

sdk009 said:


> ESPN/ESPN HD $4.58
> Fox Sports Net $2.37
> 
> RSNs: $0.20-$2.15
> 
> These numbers are two years old, and I'm sure some have changed, (all Viacom channels for example). I saw a story from last month that said ESPN is now getting $5.31 per sub. The PAC-12 must feel they fit somewhere between Fox Sports Net and the middle tier of the other RSN's.
> And we don't know if they want a graduated fee depending on in-market and out-of-market D* subs. Seeing this, though I feel $.90 is too much, and I'd be surprised if Dish is paying that much.


I noticed the age of the numbers too, but if they are correct, I have to laugh if Pac 12 thinks it deserves more than the NFL Network !rolling


----------



## kick4fun

This post is just a read, not a endorsement for either Directv nor Pac12.. JUST Observations.. All love, my DBS compadres.. 

http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/10/11/3487834/pac-12-network-directv-rumors


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> This post is just a read, not a endorsement for either Directv nor Pac12.. JUST Observations.. All love, my DBS compadres..
> 
> http://www.pacifictakes.com/2012/10/11/3487834/pac-12-network-directv-rumors


That guy has no clue how many emails DirecTV has received. The tweet was from a biased writer.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

stevester23 said:


> I noticed the age of the numbers too, but if they are correct, I have to laugh if Pac 12 thinks it deserves more than the NFL Network !rolling


Per Kagan, the NFL gets 95 cents a month...

******************
Financial terms were not disclosed. Per SNL Kagan estimates, NFL Network commands one of the highest carriage fees among nationally distributed cable networks-95 cents per subscriber per month. The industry average is one shiny quarter.

http://www.adweek.com/news/television/touchdown-time-warner-cable-cuts-deal-carry-nfl-network-143937
******************

This isn't about the NFL. It's about the Big-10.

Whatever the Big-10 gets, the Pac-10 deserves 15%, more given that it's a much more accomplished athletic league.


----------



## kick4fun

"sigma1914" said:


> That guy has no clue how many emails DirecTV has received. The tweet was from a biased writer.


Of course. Pac12 is the shiznit


----------



## Laxguy

sigma1914 said:


> That guy has no clue how many emails DirecTV has received. The tweet was from a biased writer.


But it was on a Pac12 website, so you know the reporting couldn't be shaded, slanted, much less outright wrong. (I have no way of knowing the latter):sure:


----------



## kick4fun

"Laxguy" said:


> But it was on a Pac12 website, so you know the reporting couldn't be shaded, slanted, much less outright wrong. (I have no way of knowing the latter):sure:


Are you sure its a Pac12 website? Hmm


----------



## mrro82

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Per Kagan, the NFL gets 95 cents a month...
> 
> ******************
> Financial terms were not disclosed. Per SNL Kagan estimates, NFL Network commands one of the highest carriage fees among nationally distributed cable networks-95 cents per subscriber per month. The industry average is one shiny quarter.
> 
> http://www.adweek.com/news/television/touchdown-time-warner-cable-cuts-deal-carry-nfl-network-143937
> ******************
> 
> This isn't about the NFL. It's about the Big-10.
> 
> *Whatever the Big-10 gets, the Pac-10 deserves 15%, more given that it's a much more accomplished athletic league*.


So because of the PAC 12's accolades, I should pay more a month because of it even though I live nowhere close to the PAC 12 areas? I hope that isn't what you mean. If it comes down to a conferences win record in it's sports and placing a value on it due to that alone, then sports itself is lost. Note I said conference. I'm not dragging pro sports into this just to be clear. That is a whole different topic.


----------



## kikkenit2

The pac 12 channel is very similar to the big10 network. Don't they charge a higher rate per subscriber in that local area and a lower rate for the rest of the nation? The pac 12 is surely worth $90 cents each on the west coast and $20 cents everywhere else. This issue is still hurting big in football. Every week either USC or UCLA have been on that channel. Both are on fox this week, but USC is on pac 12 next week!

These are like pro teams to southern california. It is all we got folks. And we want it now. Even hicks (just kidding) in eastern washington. Everything costs more along the west coast beach. Today we had the first hard rain all summer! No other large population area has it that good. Hey the trojans could still finish top 10. Along with 5 other pac 12 teams. Directv please make a deal now. We will pay more on the west coast. Those fans in their el segundo office need to step up. USC is 10 miles from you guys.


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> Are you sure its a Pac12 website? Hmm


Not sure, no. But this was at the top:

"Pacific Takes, a Pac-12 community" So, I've eliminated the Big10 as an interested party.


----------



## kikkenit2

A bunch of emails and phone calls and few leaving directv is worthless. Time to get personal. Directv has 2 main offices. They are in socal and Colorado. USC plays Colorado next week in college football on PAC 12 network. How many big wigs that work for directv do you know? Bug them to death that they can't watch this game. They all want to watch this game. Believe me just within directv managerial employment whoever wins that game is bragging rights! Directv are you really going to make your employees miss this game? Or watch it on cable? lol


----------



## WebTraveler

sigma1914 said:


> Big Ten Network gets $0.36 and the Pac12 wants how much? $0.90? That's a big deal with 19 million customers.


Really now.

There is an in-market rate and an out of market rate.

The Pac 12 has offered Directv substantially the same terms as Dish Network, Comcast, and the others.

You really think .36 is correct? It's an average rate. Being that Pac 12 is in a good chunk of homes nationwide it's 90 cent rate would also similarly drop to these levels or lower when you consider all of the viewers outside of the Pac 12 footprint.


----------



## WebTraveler

sigma1914 said:


> That guy has no clue how many emails DirecTV has received. The tweet was from a biased writer.


Canzano is a columnist. His role is to stir things up, which he does.

And you call him biased? I think you and everyone else here is the same. He does, however, have more knowledge of the situation than you do and is closer to many folks, he interviews them all the time on his show and for his columns. While he may be biased, he's certainly more believable than many here.


----------



## kick4fun

"Laxguy" said:


> Not sure, no. But this was at the top:
> 
> "Pacific Takes, a Pac-12 community" So, I've eliminated the Big10 as an interested party.


... Not that maybe Pacific Takes may just mean a Pacific perspective, not necessarily affiliated with Pac12 per say???
.. Just saying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB_Nation
And Yes, a Pac12 community from A larger pool..


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> But it was on a Pac12 website, so you know the reporting couldn't be shaded, slanted, much less outright wrong. (I have no way of knowing the latter):sure:


That is the most idiotic statement ever.. It's from SB Nation. Yes it says "Pacific Takes, a Pac-12 community", but also speaking on behalf of SB Nation.. Please, just grab a beer and chill out.
Please get the facts right.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB_Nation


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Ladies and gents... 

The participants of this thread have seen the action I have been forced to take because of rudeness here. It is up to you whether or not those actions need to be taken again.

Please be polite.


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> That is the most idiotic statement ever.. It's from SB Nation. Yes it says "Pacific Takes, a Pac-12 community", but also speaking on behalf of SB Nation.. Please, just grab a beer and chill out.
> Please get the facts right.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB_Nation


Not what I referred to. 
Be civil.


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> Not what I referred to.
> Be civil.


Nice.. And now you want to be.. Fine.. I agree.. Stop the challenges..


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Perhaps the conversation between you two can go to PM?


----------



## kick4fun

Stuart Sweet said:


> Perhaps the conversation between you two can go to PM?


Yes..


----------



## sigma1914

Maybe the thread can go to the DirecTV forum; Dish has it's topic already. Members who've switched seem to keep posting here to stir up trouble or flaunt.


----------



## Mariah2014

pac 12 now will be available by October 19. By that point most major providers that picked up the network will have pac 12 network now activated.


sigma1914 said:


> Maybe the thread can go to the DirecTV forum; Dish has it's topic already. Members who've switched seem to keep posting here to stir up trouble or flaunt.


----------



## kick4fun

mshaw2715 said:


> pac 12 now will be available by October 19. By that point most major providers that picked up the network will have pac 12 network now activated.


I'm assuming you're referring to the Streaming?


----------



## Mariah2014

That is what the streaming service is called that includes the networks and other events they are streaming.


kick4fun said:


> I'm assuming you're referring to the Streaming?


----------



## sigma1914

mshaw2715 said:


> That is what the streaming service is called that includes the networks and other events they are streaming.


But you quoted me. :lol:


----------



## widmark

"kikkenit2" said:


> The pac 12 channel is very similar to the big10 network. Don't they charge a higher rate per subscriber in that local area and a lower rate for the rest of the nation? The pac 12 is surely worth $90 cents each on the west coast and $20 cents everywhere else.


It seems most of the posters here are looking at this Pac 12 deal in isolation. The issue is, if collegiate football keeps fragmenting into mini networks with their own high bar fee requirements, who here thinks it won't ultimately push your bill higher, and fracture your access. If you want this game, you need DTV, if you want that game...Dish or Time Warner. It's a spaghetti of deals and fees being hatched.

I do have problem with the Pac 12 setting major records on fees ($3 billion to ESPN and Fox last year) And shutting out a network over record fee demands. DTV has signed a bunch of deals already like this and I'm sure they are thinking this cant keep going in this economy without a good percentage of subscriber drop offs/cord cutters.

Directv is by no means a saint but we DTV/Pac 12 fans are on the same side on this one. It's really frustrating that the Pac 12 is going after fees in a kind of scorched earth way, creating ad campaigns encouraging people to dump DTV and blocking games. This is a conference dominated by public universities with a mandate for equal access to education. Yet the collegiate sports side is being run like a hardball professional sports franchise.

Look at this recent interview with Larry Scott. He clearly wants to send the message that he believes DTV will lose customers and he is content to give his demands time to marinate while we lack access.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=hpd3J23EIrM&desktop_uri=/watch?v=hpd3J23EIrM


----------



## widmark

"widmark" said:


> It seems most of the posters here are looking at this Pac 12 deal in isolation. The issue is, if collegiate football keeps fragmenting into mini networks with their own high bar fee requirements, who here thinks it won't ultimately push your bill higher, and fracture your access. If you want this game, you need DTV, if you want that game...Dish or Time Warner. It's a spaghetti of deals and fees being hatched.
> 
> I do have problem with the Pac 12 setting major records on fees ($3 billion to ESPN and Fox last year) And shutting out a network over record fee demands. DTV has signed a bunch of deals already like this and I'm sure they are thinking this cant keep going in this economy without a good percentage of subscriber drop offs/cord cutters.
> 
> Directv is by no means a saint but we DTV/Pac 12 fans are on the same side on this one. It's really frustrating that the Pac 12 is going after fees in a kind of scorched earth way, creating ad campaigns encouraging people to dump DTV and blocking games. This is a conference dominated by public universities with a mandate for equal access to education. Yet the collegiate sports side is being run like a hardball professional sports franchise.
> 
> Look at this recent interview with Larry Scott. He clearly wants to send the message that he believes DTV will lose customers and he is content to give his demands time to marinate while we lack access.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=hpd3J23EIrM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dhpd3J23EIrM


I am ticked at my alma mater for being part of this and I am not donating to them a red cent until they change course. I don't want to hear that they've shut out any network over some profit motive, unless that network is really a bad actor and pulling some junk on them. I'm not seeing anything nefarious from DTV.


----------



## Laxguy

I hope you let your alumni office - especially the Development Office—know your stance in detail. And if it's Cal, that their AD ought to be fired for making a complete idiot of herself, not to mention being unprofessional in letting her office be used for private enterprise promotion. Yeeeeccchhhhh!


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

widmark said:


> It's really frustrating that the Pac 12 is going after fees in a kind of scorched earth way, creating ad campaigns encouraging people to dump DTV and blocking games.
> http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=hpd3J23EIrM&desktop_uri=/watch?v=hpd3J23EIrM


You're going after the wrong entity.

Get ESPN to accept 2.25 cents a sub, and all will be well.

Personally, I believe that the Pac-12 deserves 15% more than whatever the Big-12 gets. And I would tell the Pac-12 point person to not come back with any deal unless it's as good as what the Big-12 got.


----------



## widmark

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Personally, I believe that the Pac-12 deserves 15% more than whatever the Big-12 gets


You made my point in your byline about cable bills rising faster than tv consumption! I don't know which conference is more deserving or how they divy the pie, and it doesn't matter to me. The overall pie is becoming unmanagable with all these mini networks... and their pricing is in aggregate not going to work for the average customer if the trend continues. One of the networks needs to take the plunge and fight the trend, I just wish it wasn't my network DTV.

BTW, I just looked it up and last earnings, DTV posted their first net US subscriber loss in their history.

I have a feeling this will be a long ride. I just signed up with DTV so I have no choice but to ride it out.


----------



## widmark

Laxguy said:


> I hope you let your alumni office - especially the Development Office-know your stance in detail. And if it's Cal, that their AD ought to be fired for making a complete idiot of herself, not to mention being unprofessional in letting her office be used for private enterprise promotion. Yeeeeccchhhhh!


You pegged me right as a Cal Bear. Cal won but the Giants blew up this weekend! Although I couldn't watch the Cal game given the dispute.

I know there's a budget crisis and the cuts on the UC system have been severe, but come on, this hardball fee grab is going to hurt more than help at some level, and they seem to have found the level.


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> I hope you let your alumni office - especially the Development Office-know your stance in detail. And if it's Cal, that their AD ought to be fired for making a complete idiot of herself, not to mention being unprofessional in letting her office be used for private enterprise promotion. Yeeeeccchhhhh!


This is the wrong approach as well.. My wife works in Development and this is not the right course of action to see change in the contracts for Pac12. Call the Pac12, but the Development dept (My wife works as the SR Director of Annual Gifts) will ask for gifts that are donated to general funds, certain scholarships etc. If one stops giving to the University because they're not able to access the Pac12 networks, then shame on them. How silly!

Secondly, CAL AD FIRED?? Because she supports watching her team on the TV at home?? No, I'm quite sure CAL will not fire her over this. She's done a nice job with the program at CAL, despite the mixed reactions of the Youtube video.


----------



## kick4fun

widmark said:


> You pegged me right as a Cal Bear. Cal won but the Giants blew up this weekend! Although I couldn't watch the Cal game given the dispute.
> 
> I know there's a budget crisis and the cuts on the UC system have been severe, but come on, this hardball fee grab is going to hurt more than help at some level, and they seem to have found the level.


The President of Colorado State University has just addressed the need for University funding to expect less and less money from the State of Colorado and I expect most Universities to expect the same. By the year 2020, CSU expects all the public funds to vanguish, however they have just approved stadium relocation and a overall stadium fund of over $250 Million dollars. I mention this example because this going on around the country. CSU probably would have been a better fit for the Pac12 then lets say Utah. One of the reasons they were overlooked was because of their current facilities.

Larry Scott of the Pac12 has addressed this need for the schools of the PAC by building a network securing the funding for all the schools to have sufficient money for their athletic programs. This tactic levels the playing field for all the Pac schools and doesn't leave anyone out. I know it seems wrong in the current economic state, but oddly enough people are paying with their wallets. Certainly ESPN and FOX wouldn't have paid the Pac12 this money if they didn't feel they could sell it.


----------



## kick4fun

widmark said:


> You pegged me right as a Cal Bear. Cal won but the Giants blew up this weekend! Although I couldn't watch the Cal game given the dispute.
> 
> I know there's a budget crisis and the cuts on the UC system have been severe, but come on, this hardball fee grab is going to hurt more than help at some level, and they seem to have found the level.


We belong to an Alumni group and sometimes meet up for games... Now, I'm able to watch the games via DISH only because I recently switched, but you could always call around and find a bar to watch the games that are on PAC12 networks. WE just found one that had Comcast. It might take some work, but if you don't want to switch providers they're usually is an option to find someplace. I do feel your pain.


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> This is the wrong approach as well.. My wife works in Development and this is not the right course of action to see change in the contracts for Pac12.


I'm sure your wife would agree, as would any staffer of any Development or Alumni office of any of the constituents. [Or anyone with a mission to force DIRECTV® to carry the station.]

But similar to those who advocated calling DIRECTV en masse, or dropping the service, or FBing the matter ad nausuem, registering one's complaint with the money departments of the various universities is likely to have some impact over time, especially if donations fall because of this rabid little group running the new consortium.


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> I'm sure your wife would agree, as would any staffer of any Development or Alumni office of any of the constituents. [Or anyone with a mission to force DIRECTV® to carry the station.]
> 
> But similar to those who advocated calling DIRECTV en masse, or dropping the service, or FBing the matter ad nausuem, registering one's complaint with the money departments of the various universities is likely to have some impact over time, especially if donations fall because of this rabid little group running the new consortium.


No, she does not agree. I conceded the calling of Directv as a bad idea but calling the Office of development because what?? Directv isn't agreeing to the demands of the Network? Come on.

Even Bill Moos, The AD at WSU, said he wished the deal to be done but maybe people should switch. He was on hold in his latest proposal to add a new $60 million stadium addition, but now had decided to continue despite the lack of Directv.


----------



## maartena

kick4fun said:


> but now had decided to continue despite the lack of Directv.


I knew it was an empty threat.


----------



## kick4fun

maartena said:


> I knew it was an empty threat.


The AD making empty threats? I think he realized he could make it without the Directv money and wants to build a premier program, like he did @ Oregon a few years back. 

He still does promote the switch to a different provider if you want to watch the games.. Nothing empty about that.


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> No, she does not agree. I conceded the calling of Directv as a bad idea but calling the Office of development because what?? Directv isn't agreeing to the demands of the Network? Come on.


Are you trying to misunderstand?

1.) My statement was that your wife would agree with you, that calling Development offices was a bad idea. :nono:

2.) That the PAC12's quest for $$ above principles would cause some alums to drop their annual giving or other gifts.


----------



## kick4fun

But Moos said those revenue streams should be made clear enough by the second week of October, when the annual Pac-12 meetings are held.

"We want to be ready if questions are asked in regard to what that line is going to be in our revenue projections," Moos said.

"There's going to be a revenue stream. I personally would like to get a little bit better handle on it when we're going forward with projects, so we can show we can cover whatever debt we may incur."

Even if DirecTV isn't involved.

"I mean, here they're carrying the Big Ten Network in our own footprint, and it's beside me that they think people will tune into a Minnesota-Indiana game rather than a Washington State-UCLA game, you know?" Moos said. "That baffles me."

The Pac-12 has taken its battle with DirecTV public, posting statements on its website that have resulted in fan backlash against the television provider.

"It might have some kind of positive effect for us," Moos said.

http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2012/sep/22/wsu-athletic-director-moos-moves-ahead-with-plans/


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> Are you trying to misunderstand?
> 
> 1.) My statement was that your wife would agree with you, that calling Development offices was a bad idea. :nono:
> 
> 2.) That the PAC12's quest for $$ above principles would cause some alums to drop their annual giving or other gifts.


1.) I did misunderstand, but not on purpose.. I don't wish to fight with you. Side note, my wife wanted to keep Directv because of the NFL and only gave in because I would not relent.

2.) The request for $$ above principles is odd. What is the defining point of the principles? To what, Directv?? Are they just digging in because that is how they negotiate? If people stop giving to the university because they can't watch some games on the TV, well I guess that is their right.. It's their money. Similarly people will stop giving money to the TV providers because they can't watch games.. I would argue that most people give to their Alma Matter because of their own personal experiences and ties to the education, community and general feeling for the University.


----------



## widmark

kick4fun said:


> If people stop giving to the university because they can't watch some games on the TV, well I guess that is their right.. It's their money. Similarly people will stop giving money to the TV providers because they can't watch games.. I would argue that most people give to their Alma Matter because of their own personal experiences and ties to the education, community and general feeling for the University.


The Pac 12 is going after $, and the universities need it. I want Cal and other colleges to get a good amount of revenue from broadcast rights too.

None of us know the specific price level that is too much or too little for the Pac 12 to demand. 90 cents, 50 cents, 3 cents a sub? Have no idea. But I do know that the Pac 12 is consistently demanding and commanding record fees from networks, in the middle of one of the worst economies. Causing even one major network to pass on broadcasting when they are broadcasting other conferences, shows the Pac 12 has pushed too far and demanded a price that is too high. On top, how much is the Pac 12 spending on smearing DTV for not capitulating? How much are they paying the Pac 12 administrators, lawyers and consultants to procure these record deals? Record fees from 90% of the networks and zero from others like DTV probably means dropping prices would increase it to 100% and generate more in revenue, and provide 100% access for fans. I'm not so sure they need to choose between maxmizing profit and doing the right thing... somewhat lower pricing would probably accomplish both goals.

So Cal/Pac 12 schools will at least consider the situation if a bunch of alumns complain and vote with their wallets, especially since the entire mission of this Pac 12 Network drive is to generate max dollars. *Its a good mission but the Pac 12 has gone nuclear, and they need to cool it.*


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> 2.) The request for $$ above principles is odd. What is the defining point of the principles? To what, Directv?? Are they just digging in because that is how they negotiate? *If people stop giving to the university because they can't watch some games on the TV*, well I guess that is their right.. It's their money. Similarly people will stop giving money to the TV providers because they can't watch games.. I would argue that most people give to their Alma Matter because of their own personal experiences and ties to the education, community and general feeling for the University.


I agree with the last sentence, but it seems at odds with what I colored blue; it's hardly about watching games or not for those who feel the principles of their Uni, as expressed in the PAC12 money grab, are being compromised.


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> I agree with the last sentence, but it seems at odds with what I colored blue; it's hardly about watching games or not for those who feel the principles of their Uni, as expressed in the PAC12 money grab, are being compromised.


But the Universities are tied to the Pac12, to which they all applaud they efforts of Larry Scott. It just sucks for all us that either have to suffer through not watching or having to switch..


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> But the Universities are tied to the Pac12, to which they all applaud they efforts of Larry Scott. It just sucks for all us that either have to suffer through not watching or having to switch..


Even if each administration of each of the twelve stand fully behind Scott's tactics, not all alumni nor alumnae do. And I bet there are plenty of admins (given that each have dozens if not hundreds of officers) who are uneasy with the way Scott has rolled.

Yes, the situation sucks for a lot of folks, not just PAC12 fans.


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> Even if each administration of each of the twelve stand fully behind Scott's tactics, not all alumni nor alumnae do. And I bet there are plenty of admins (given that each have dozens if not hundreds of officers) who are uneasy with the way Scott has rolled.
> 
> Yes, the situation sucks for a lot of folks, not just PAC12 fans.


But I'm really confused.. As an Alum from Washington State, I have seen the firing of a $250,000 coach to hiring of $2.5 Million coach with high expectations for the future ( we could never afford this change in the past).. A remodel of our press boxes and new club seats (a $80 Million project) and a new Athletics facility proposal for $60 million to be started in the fall. The only way this happens, was through the expansion of the Pac10 to 12 and the contract with ESPN, FOX and all the other cable deals. So far, yes the Pac12 networks is a sticky point, but all in all, my University has a chance to equal the playing field with some of the other schools.. Why would I be disappointed in that? It didn't come from general University funds or worse, tax payer money.. It came from a forward thinking man named Larry Scott who got the deal of the century for us..

For the non Pac12 fans, what is the complaint? It's not on Directv yet, so the bill isn't higher.. For the Bars who just worry about caring games, they can also add cable which I know a lot have.. If they pack the house, the money comes in from alcohol sales to offset any monthly bill they might incur for the broadcasting of games.


----------



## sdk009

It will be interesting to see if anything comes from the PAC 12 meeting today in San Francisco between the Commissioner and the Presidents. 
This Sat the PAC 12 Net will be carrying two of the conference's ranked teams with USC (#11 AP Poll) hosting Colorado and Oregon St (#8) at home against Utah and will have three games more the following week. 
It's really time to settle.


----------



## Laxguy

I don't think you're confused. 

We have very different views on what is all right and what isn't. 

With that, I am wishing you well, the PAC12 well, and DirecTV also; I will try to abstain from posting so much on this issue.


----------



## kick4fun

:icon_peac



Laxguy said:


> I don't think you're confused.
> 
> We have very different views on what is all right and what isn't.
> 
> With that, I am wishing you well, the PAC12 well, and DirecTV also; I will try to abstain from posting so much on this issue.


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> But I'm really confused.. As an Alum from Washington State, I have seen the firing of a $250,000 coach to hiring of $2.5 Million coach with high expectations for the future ( we could never afford this change in the past).. A remodel of our press boxes and new club seats (a $80 Million project) and a new Athletics facility proposal for $60 million to be started in the fall. The only way this happens, was through the expansion of the Pac10 to 12 and the contract with ESPN, FOX and all the other cable deals. So far, yes the Pac12 networks is a sticky point, but all in all, my University has a chance to equal the playing field with some of the other schools.. Why would I be disappointed in that? It didn't come from general University funds or worse, tax payer money.. It came from a forward thinking man named Larry Scott who got the deal of the century for us..
> 
> ...


That's not the only way it happens. Many schools will raise student fees to pay for athletic improvements.


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> That's not the only way it happens. Many schools will raise student fees to pay for athletic improvements.


Can you give me an example? I know this is how it's done without big conference dollars. 
I know when I was a student, we had poor facilities to exercise in.. Since then, the new trend is to build big REC Centers and of course the students must pay higher fees for those.. 
As far as athletics, I'm sure the cost of tickets to games has gone up, but only marginally compared to the cost of building bigger and better facilities.. I'm not saying they are cheap, but if one can't afford it, they certainly don't have to attend the games.. 
But, seriously who can afford the tuition these days anyway???.. I'm still fairly young and my tuition back in the early 90's was just under $1000 including getting a Year Round Sports pass. I know it's more like $3000 now which is incredible. But these costs are related to the higher cost of running a University and the lack of public funding, not the costs associated with TV Contracts.


----------



## donm

sigma1914 said:


> That's not the only way it happens. Many schools will raise student fees to pay for athletic improvements.


They haven't done that at my school. They have raised tickets prices to football games through the roof though but that is ok if people will pay the price IMO.


----------



## kick4fun

donm said:


> They haven't done that at my school. They have raised tickets prices to football games through the roof though but that is ok if people will pay the price IMO.


Sad.. That is the cost for being good I guess and having a high demand.. You can thank Bill Moos and of course Phil Knight for that..


----------



## sigma1914

My school, the University of North Texas, just opened a new stadium in 2011. Here's what happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apogee_Stadium#Early_planning_and_finance


> Early planning and finance
> 
> In 2002, a referendum for a higher student athletics fee was rejected by 55 percent of UNT's voting students. After the vote, however, school administrators lobbied UNT Student Government Association (SGA) senators to increase the fee as a way to help the university's athletics program achieve Title IX compliance. The student senators then approved a student fee of roughly half the proposed increase, which the Board of Regents implemented immediately. Consequently, students mounted a recall election campaign, supported by documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, which resulted in the removal of 14 student senators from office.[9][10]
> 
> In September 2002, the university purchased land on the opposite side of Interstate 35 from the main campus in Denton, Texas from Liberty Christian School for $5.1 million.[11] Following the football team's victory at the 2002 New Orleans Bowl, school administrators announced their intent to build an assortment of new athletic facilities on the property, collectively referred to as the Mean Green Village, as well as a new football stadium. The new stadium would replace Fouts Field, where the school's football team had been based since 1952. Richard Raefs, then vice chancellor of administrative affairs at UNT, claimed that renovating Fouts Field would cost $8 million more than building an entirely new stadium and that the project's primary objective was the consolidation of academic facilities.[12]
> 
> The Board of Regents released a long-term campus master plan in 2005 that included a proposed new stadium with a capacity of 35,000 and an estimated cost "in excess of $35 million".[13] UNT athletic director Rick Villareal stated that the university would use only private fundraising, rather than another increase in students' fees, to pay for any new facilities, including a stadium. He said, "we have a mandate here. We haven't built anything or will build anything without raising the money ourselves", and that the new stadium would cost $40 million and seat 50,000 spectators.[14] The athletic department changed that capacity estimate in 2007 to 32,000 with the possibility of later expansion to 50,000.[15]
> Athletics fee referendum
> 
> In 2008, the athletic department tried again to increase the athletics fee to pay for the new stadium, which now had an estimated cost of $60 million. SGA student senators voted to hold a student election on the referendum to approve the new fee, which amounted to a net increase of $7 per credit hour for each student, or approximately $840 per student over the course of four years.[10][Note 1] The athletic department made a concerted effort to promote the higher fee to students, and supporters suggested hiring street preachers or troubadours to promote the election.[17] A month before the election, athletic director Rick Villareal said that the stadium was "not some arms race for us" and that the fee's objective was not just to keep up with other universities.[18]
> 
> The referendum was held in October 2008, with the text:
> 
> In order for the University of North Texas to have a better Athletic program, which in turn can lead to national exposure and increased recognition of UNT; I agree to a dedicated Athletic Fee not to exceed $10 per semester credit hour, capped at 15 hours. Once the Athletic Fee is implemented, the Student Service Fee will be reduced by $3 per semester credit hour. The Athletic Fee shall not be implemented until the semester the new football stadium is complete, which is expected to be fall 2011.[19]
> 
> On October 21, 2008, the UNT SGA announced that in one of the largest turnouts in the school's history, student voters approved a dedicated athletic fee to fund the new stadium. Almost 14 percent of the student body voted, with 2,829 students (58.1%) voting for the increase and 2,038 (41.9%) voting against it. After the election, the cost estimate for the stadium's construction increased by $18 million to $78 million, $38 million more than the 2005 estimate.[20] At a press conference with then head football coach Todd Dodge, Villarreal said, "there's an arms race going on going on with facilities. This one will put us up there with everybody else."[21] In February 2009, the school's chapter of Students for a Democratic Society unsuccessfully attempted to petition for a re-vote on the referendum.[22]


Basically, vote for increased fees for future students. :lol:


----------



## sigma1914

kick4fun said:


> Funny, my wife was the Director of Annual giving @ UNT back in 2008 before leaving for UTA and now in Colorado. I do remember a lot of problems with the Athletics and the Board of Trustees. That is one major reason President Gretchen Bataille left and now replaced by that silly Morman we had @ Washington State, Lane Rawlins. You need big conference money.. That will help with the costs.


She was at UNT? Small world! What years was she there? I attended 98-04.


----------



## chillyfl

Went to the trouble of counting the total football games by school on the PAC-12 Network so far (played or scheduled). There are still 19 PAC-12 games that haven't designated a network, so each school can expect 1 to 2 more games on the P12N that have yet to be scheduled.

6 games - Cal
4 games - OSU, UA, Col, WSU
3 games - UO, Stan, UCLA, Utah, UW
2 games - USC, ASU


----------



## majikmarker

I'm a WSU alum and would like to eventually see the Pac12 Network on DirectV, but it is not something that I would ever consider changing providers for.

Even if the Coug football program was respectable, ( I have high hopes for Leach) I still cannot imagine going through the upheaval of change. Instead, I am perfectly happy to listen to BobRob on the radio or internet, misidentifying players, numbers, yard lines, down and distance, etc (still love the guy but his days are numbered).

And bring back Jim Walden on the Coug broadcasts. I miss his homer viewpoint and all the groans in the background about missed holding calls!


----------



## kick4fun

majikmarker said:


> I'm a WSU alum and would like to eventually see the Pac12 Network on DirectV, but it is not something that I would ever consider changing providers for.
> 
> Even if the Coug football program was respectable, ( I have high hopes for Leach) I still cannot imagine going through the upheaval of change. Instead, I am perfectly happy to listen to BobRob on the radio or internet, misidentifying players, numbers, yard lines, down and distance, etc (still love the guy but his days are numbered).
> 
> And bring back Jim Walden on the Coug broadcasts. I miss his homer viewpoint and all the groans in the background about missed holding calls!


See, you're lucky.. You can at least get to hear the radio broadcast. I disagree with Walden though.. As fun and goofy as he was, he shouldn't have questioned the top brass.. Just my thoughts.. 
I had higher hopes for this season, but I have enjoyed the last couple of weeks watching the games on the TV. For me, the switch was important.. The downer, I gave up watching the Seahawks and this might be a very good year to have Sunday ticket.

Oh, and GO COUGS!


----------



## sdk009

On Thursday night's Oregon-ASU game the Conference Commissioner again stated that the deal D* is balking at is the exact same deal that the other carriers have agreed to. He said that DirecTV officials “have dug in their heels” and he sees no reason for optimism that the satellite provider will add the Pac-12 networks.

And he said that it is frustrating that DirecTV is not accepting the same terms everyone else has.
And as a long-time sub, my patience with D* is really wearing thin and indeed if D* is balking at the same deal as others, it may be time to seek out other carriers.


----------



## bnwrx

sdk009 said:


> On Thursday night's Oregon-ASU game the Conference Commissioner again stated that the deal D* is balking at is the exact same deal that the other carriers have agreed to. He said that DirecTV officials "have dug in their heels" and he sees no reason for optimism that the satellite provider will add the Pac-12 networks.
> 
> And he said that it is frustrating that DirecTV is not accepting the same terms everyone else has.
> And as a long-time sub, my patience with D* is really wearing thin and indeed if D* is balking at the same deal as others, it may be time to seek out other carriers.


But remember, you are hearing only 1 side of it,maybe it is correct, but it is still just 1 side....In my opinion, its when you hear nothing about negotiations that real progress gets done. Posturing with the press usually gets nowhere. IE: the NHL talks....


----------



## sdk009

bnwrx said:


> But remember, you are hearing only 1 side of it,maybe it is correct, but it is still just 1 side....In my opinion, its when you hear nothing about negotiations that real progress gets done. Posturing with the press usually gets nowhere. IE: the NHL talks....


I've never read anything from D* to contradict this statement for the Commissioner. If indeed the deal was different, D* would be putting the world on notice about it, and what does the Commissioner have to gain from lying about the negotiations?


----------



## bnwrx

sdk009 said:


> *I've never read anything from D* to contradict this statement for the Commissioner.* If indeed the deal was different, D* would be putting the world on notice about it, and what does the Commissioner have to gain from lying about the negotiations?


Exactly my point. Keep it out of the press. By going on TV every week the commish is posturing, like it or not....


----------



## mws192

"sdk009" said:


> On Thursday night's Oregon-ASU game the Conference Commissioner again stated that the deal D* is balking at is the exact same deal that the other carriers have agreed to. He said that DirecTV officials "have dug in their heels" and he sees no reason for optimism that the satellite provider will add the Pac-12 networks.
> 
> And he said that it is frustrating that DirecTV is not accepting the same terms everyone else has.


And what if those terms are "same tier as BTN"? Directv is the only provider who carries BTN on the base package for everyone, which is something they will likely change when the current BTN deal is up. Other providers, already with BTN in higher priced tiers, are more willing to play ball in this scenario.

Conceivably the Pac12 could be saying they won't do any sports tier unless BTN is too yet Directv isn't willing to accept that anymore.


----------



## kick4fun

mws192 said:


> And what if those terms are "same tier as BTN"? Directv is the only provider who carries BTN on the base package for everyone, which is something they will likely change when the current BTN deal is up. Other providers, already with BTN in higher priced tiers, are more willing to play ball in this scenario.
> 
> Conceivably the Pac12 could be saying they won't do any sports tier unless BTN is too yet Directv isn't willing to accept that anymore.


Pac12 isn't demanding that from Dish though.. It certainly is a thought, but is it possible that Pac12 Networks would only want the same that they have given DISH (packages larger than the base)?

Just curious, when does the current BTN and Directv deal end?


----------



## Michael H..

sdk009 said:


> On Thursday night's Oregon-ASU game the Conference Commissioner again stated that the deal D* is balking at is the exact same deal that the other carriers have agreed to. He said that DirecTV officials "have dug in their heels" and he sees no reason for optimism that the satellite provider will add the Pac-12 networks.
> 
> And he said that it is frustrating that DirecTV is not accepting the same terms everyone else has.
> And as a long-time sub, my patience with D* is really wearing thin and indeed if D* is balking at the same deal as others, it may be time to seek out other carriers.


I've lost track of what the latest "configuration" is.
Initially, a major point of disagreement between DirecTV and the PAC12 was the broadcast of all 7 network channels.
Since I don't see any of the carriers broadcasting all 7 networks...
with the exception of broadcasting the national feed and making the regional feeds available online, ala Comcast/Xfinity...
what exactly are the "same terms" that the PAC12 is offering DirecTV?
Are they no longer insisting that DirecTV broadcast all 7 channels?
Do they all have to be HD, or can they be in SD, as some of the other carriers are providing?
There was some speculation that DirecTV wanted to include the national feed, and to offer the six regionals on an ala-carte basis, and that the PAC12 would not agree... Was/is this still the case?

I'm a UCLA alum in Maine.
I would like to see DirecTV broadcast all 7 networks, but am not going to change providers if they don't.
If they're not in HD, in particular the LA region broadcast, and if they're limited to online, I'm not going to watch.
I already get both coast DNS, so with the LA DNS, I get the LA region major network broadcasts of any out-of-conference, or the conference games rights the PAC12 has sold... in addition to the ESPN games.
So far, the PAC12 has made available the "marquee" conference matchups to national providers, which makes having the PAC12 networks a non-essential for me.


----------



## mhking

My wife just asked me where today's USC-Colorado game is going to air. When I told her we wouldn't have it, she got pretty bloody upset, and asked the crucial question: Why are we paying so much money to DirecTV if they can't air what we're looking for on television?

If for noting else, DirecTV, please get me out of the bloody doghouse! Let my wife be able to watch Southern Cal on television. Please?


----------



## mhking

sdk009 said:


> It will be interesting to see if anything comes from the PAC 12 meeting today in San Francisco between the Commissioner and the Presidents.
> This Sat the PAC 12 Net will be carrying two of the conference's ranked teams with USC (#11 AP Poll) hosting Colorado and Oregon St (#8) at home against Utah and will have three games more the following week.
> It's really time to settle.


+1

This is really getting out of hand. I don't care about DirecTV's greed. If they can't get their act together, if for nothing else than to keep the peace in my own house, I may be forced to shift gears and providers.

Like I said once before, it's obvious that DirecTV is only the sports leader as long as they can collect dollars on the deal. They truly don't care about the viewers, and ought to own up to that fact.


----------



## mhking

I love it. I drop a note to DirecTV and their best suggestion is to listen to the game on the radio. 

C'mon! If I am left to do that, then what the heck am I spending money on television for?!?


----------



## kick4fun

mhking said:


> I love it. I drop a note to DirecTV and their best suggestion is to listen to the game on the radio.
> 
> C'mon! If I am left to do that, then what the heck am I spending money on television for?!?


That beats my situation of a Directv booth employee telling me he's had it for 2 years and when I show him differently, he crumbles up the paper and throws it at my 6 year old daughter.. What a joke!

I hear ya...


----------



## cjrleimer

I have a feeling when we get to basketball season, if we have a good matchup e.g. Arizona Cal I think we will see alot of poed people then.


----------



## Hoosier205

mhking said:


> They truly don't care about the viewers, and ought to own up to that fact.


Oh please...more of this rhetoric? It's one niche, specialty channel.


----------



## Hoosier205

sdk009 said:


> On Thursday night's Oregon-ASU game the Conference Commissioner again stated that the deal D* is balking at is the exact same deal that the other carriers have agreed to. He said that DirecTV officials "have dug in their heels" and he sees no reason for optimism that the satellite provider will add the Pac-12 networks.
> 
> And he said that it is frustrating that DirecTV is not accepting the same terms everyone else has.


More lies from the commissioner. He can't seem to keep his stories straight.


----------



## Hoosier205

sdk009 said:


> I've never read anything from D* to contradict this statement for the Commissioner. If indeed the deal was different, D* would be putting the world on notice about it, and what does the Commissioner have to gain from lying about the negotiations?


Potential distribution to more than 20 millions subs matters a lot more to the commissioner than it does to DirecTV. That's his motivation for continuing to change his story and lie. This is a non-issue for DirecTV. Coverage of this "issue" has been steadily declining. Also, churn from not having PAC-12 Network? Haha...likely to be extremely low.


----------



## sdk009

Hoosier205 said:


> Oh please...more of this rhetoric? It's one niche, specialty channel.





Hoosier205 said:


> More lies from the commissioner. He can't seem to keep his stories straight.





Hoosier205 said:


> Potential distribution to more than 20 millions subs matters a lot more to the commissioner than it does to DirecTV. That's his motivation for continuing to change his story and lie. This is a non-issue for DirecTV. Coverage of this "issue" has been steadily declining. Also, churn from not having PAC-12 Network? Haha...likely to be extremely low.


So regardless of our thoughts and opinions, your bias towards D* and the lack of tolerance for any that opposes you diminishes the value of your writings.


----------



## sum_random_dork

With Missy Franklin announcing yesterday she is headed to Cal next fall to swim I am sure more people will be tuning into swimming. There are not many "stars" in other sports but I would classify Missy as one. For my family and me this is something we would/will tune into watch on PAC 12 nets.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sdk009" said:


> So regardless of our thoughts and opinions, your bias towards D* and the lack of tolerance for any that opposes you diminishes the value of your writings.


Dispute my statements, if you can, rather than taking to personal attacks.


----------



## kick4fun

sdk009 said:


> So regardless of our thoughts and opinions, your bias towards D* and the lack of tolerance for any that opposes you diminishes the value of your writings.


Well said..


----------



## Hoosier205

Potential distribution to more than 20 millions subs matters a lot more to the commissioner than it does to DirecTV. That's his motivation for continuing to change his story and lie. This is a non-issue for DirecTV. Coverage of this "issue" has been steadily declining. Also, churn from not having PAC-12 Network? Haha...likely to be extremely low.


----------



## Sandra

I REALLY wish DirecTV would stop with the tough negotiating stand and pay the additional dollars for the channels. It's not like meeting Pac-12 Network's terms is going to cost us thousands of dollars per subscriber.

I miss the 'good old' DirecTv days.


Sandra


----------



## Laxguy

Sandra said:


> I REALLY wish DirecTV would stop with the tough negotiating stand and pay the additional dollars for the channels. It's not like meeting Pac-12 Network's terms is going to cost us thousands of dollars per subscriber.


While a number of PAC12 fans would pay a lot more, there are millions-maybe 19 million- who don't want to pay a penny more......


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> With that, I am wishing you well, the PAC12 well, and DirecTV also; I will try to abstain from posting so much on this issue.






Laxguy said:


> While a number of PAC12 fans would pay a lot more, there are millions-maybe 19 million- who don't want to pay a penny more......


This is kind of a stretch considering Directv is speaking and we haven't seen any polling numbers to show this..


----------



## sum_random_dork

What I have yet to figure out is why so many choose to blame the Pac 12 on this and say DirecTV is in the "right." From everything I read it was DirecTV that chose to walk away from the table at the 11th hr. Yes the Pac 12 wants DirecTV that's not to be disputed but I think DirecTV felt they could force the Pac 12 to agree to a different deal at the last moment which didn't happen. As for the 20 million subs, that's DirecTV reported total # of subs of that many would not have the Pac 12 because they are out of the market or they don't subscribe to a package that would include it. The Pac 12 has done a decent job of getting other Cable/Sat companies to sign up so I am not sure we can say they are not be reasonable: Dish, Comcast, TWC, Brighthouse, Astound/Wave, Frontier, Suddenlink have all signed on and have a large West Coast audience. The only majors I can think of that are not signed on are ATT Uverse (which seems to have backed off on their expansion), Charter (mostly in secondary Pac 12 markets), and DirecTV. 

Hopefully something changes so this thread can be "put to bed" and we can disucuss things like does Oregon State belong in the BCS discussion and should Oregon be #2 in the BCS etc...


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> Indeed I have done what I said....
> 
> This is kind of a stretch considering Directv is speaking and we haven't seen any polling numbers to show this..


No, and you won't from DIRECTV®. It was me guessing that at the outside, there might be a million subs who'd be willing to pay up for PAC12. That leaves up to 19 million that aren't willing. And, yes, the point that there aren't that many subs to sports packages is quite valid.


----------



## kikkenit2

Laxguy said:


> While a number of PAC12 fans would pay a lot more, there are millions-maybe 19 million- who don't want to pay a penny more......


Most of those 19 million are getting their bill raised $5 every year. Most would accept 25 cents of that and $1 buck on the west coast to include this channel. Then they could watch #10 USC wipe out Colorado last week and this week all 19 mil will miss 4 college football games including undefeateds #2 Oregon and #7 Oregon State, #19 Stanford and one other game. No way i'm missing all those games. I just called Cox Comm. and added that channel and hd dvr for $70 per month. Thanks a lot directv you cheap ars corporation.


----------



## kick4fun

sum_random_dork said:


> What I have yet to figure out is why so many choose to blame the Pac 12 on this and say DirecTV is in the "right." From everything I read it was DirecTV that chose to walk away from the table at the 11th hr. Yes the Pac 12 wants DirecTV that's not to be disputed but I think DirecTV felt they could force the Pac 12 to agree to a different deal at the last moment which didn't happen. As for the 20 million subs, that's DirecTV reported total # of subs of that many would not have the Pac 12 because they are out of the market or they don't subscribe to a package that would include it. The Pac 12 has done a decent job of getting other Cable/Sat companies to sign up so I am not sure we can say they are not be reasonable: Dish, Comcast, TWC, Brighthouse, Astound/Wave, Frontier, Suddenlink have all signed on and have a large West Coast audience. The only majors I can think of that are not signed on are ATT Uverse (which seems to have backed off on their expansion), Charter (mostly in secondary Pac 12 markets), and DirecTV.
> 
> Hopefully something changes so this thread can be "put to bed" and we can disucuss things like does Oregon State belong in the BCS discussion and should Oregon be #2 in the BCS etc...


here here!!!! :joy:


----------



## kick4fun

:goodjob:


kikkenit2 said:


> Most of those 19 million are getting their bill raised $5 every year. Most woulod accept 25 cents of that and $1 buck on the west coast to include this channel. Then they could watch #10 USC wipe out Colorado last week and this week all 19 mil will miss 4 college football games including undefeateds #2 Oregon and #7 Oregon State, #19 Stanford and one other game. No way i'm missing all those games. I just called Cox Comm. and added that channel and hd dvr for $70 per month. Thanks a lot directv you cheap ars corporation.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Sandra" said:


> I REALLY wish DirecTV would stop with the tough negotiating stand and pay the additional dollars for the channels. It's not like meeting Pac-12 Network's terms is going to cost us thousands of dollars per subscriber.
> 
> I miss the 'good old' DirecTv days.
> 
> Sandra


Right...other than other content owners taking note of it and exploiting it. Just that potential disaster.


----------



## Gotchaa

What a sad state of affairs. I am so tired of the excuses, I get to subsidie the BigTen regional network but its a problem to add Pac12 to even the sports package? I am signing up with Time Warner, I can get my Lakers SportsNetwork and PAC-12. They just don't care about their loyal customers, why should we care about them.


----------



## kick4fun

So for the 5th time this year, Washington State will be on the Pac12 Networks..

I really don't need recounts of how 19 Million customers don't care about this network nor how Directv is protecting the customer..

For me and I'm sure others, the Pac12 Networks at least gives us (the customer) the chance to watch every single Football game. In years past, there was always a few games that were never televised. Now, with the Pac12 Net, I can always see a game if it's not on a national broadcast.


----------



## Mariah2014

It just shows you how many games they used to play that didn't get covered before a few of them games over the years moved to local stations in Spokane, but that was rare and in most cases the Apple Cup until SWX came around.


kick4fun said:


> So for the 5th time this year, Washington State will be on the Pac12 Networks..
> 
> I really don't need recounts of how 19 Million customers don't care about this network nor how Directv is protecting the customer..
> 
> For me and I'm sure others, the Pac12 Networks at least gives us (the customer) the chance to watch every single Football game. In years past, there was always a few games that were never televised. Now, with the Pac12 Net, I can always see a game if it's not on a national broadcast.


----------



## bnwrx

What a thread....23 pages and counting and this is the second thread on this subject! The PAC12 fanboys here really keep it going, but if you think they they have passion for their channel wait till the "SEC Channel" comes along. Those folks will really light up the board if their games are not on DTV......


----------



## Sandra

Laxguy said:


> While a number of PAC12 fans would pay a lot more, there are millions-maybe 19 million- who don't want to pay a penny more......


Well, I am not speaking for 19 million other people...or even one other person. I'm speaking my opinion only.

I spend so much money on DirecTV and all of their sports packages that adding a few cents or even a few dollars won't change my economic situation, but adding the Pac-12 Network will add to my sports watching enjoyment.

That's how I feel.

Sandra


----------



## Laxguy

Sandra-

I get that, and were I a fan of a particular PAC12 school, I'd feel the same way most likely. I am glad that you haven't felt the need to post 84 times about it, though! :lol:


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy said:


> I am glad that you haven't felt the need to post 84 times about it, though! :lol:





Laxguy said:


> I will try to abstain from posting so much on this issue.


HAHAHA...


----------



## sum_random_dork

The best thing that could have happened for DirecTV in Nor Cal has taken place: Cal has been a disapointment overall, Stanford has been decent but not in the North Divsion race, and the SF Giants are still playing. If the Giants had fallen out of the race and/or Cal/Stanford was undefeated I think there were would be a much bigger outcry. But the Giants (and A's) were at the top of the Sports heap and the 49ers are playing well has meant CFB hasn't gotten the publicity on local news and CSN.


----------



## danduck

I was planning on holding on and not switching to Dish Network but with basketball season coming up soon and no sign of the channel being added I will have to start looking into the switch. I can't believe Directv would give up the LA area by not adding Pac 12 and the Laker's channel by the start of the basketball season, but it certainly looks like that is what is going to happen.


----------



## WebTraveler

Directv never had any significant plans to carry the Pac 12 Network despite it's talking points during the summer. Directv's management played us all and successfully deferred it's subscribers from leaving before football season and then kept it up during football season. The cat is out of the bag now and there will be some switching, but not much before next fall's football - then you will see massive switch.

We'll have to see how basketball season goes, but I don't expect the same interest in basketball than we have in football, although there are more games so you will see some switching.

Truth be told is that I wouldn't ever trust what a Directv exec has to say. They lie through their teeth. It's OK to make a business decision not to carry the channel, it's not OK to lie about it.

But it all worked out. Dish has far superior technology and I am paying a lower price even after the 12 month promos end. Directv is slightly ahead in programming, but when you add Pac 12 network to the mix - which I watch and care about - that make Dish better. (Geez, did I say that? Dish is better? Well, it is now....Directv used to be better...)



sum_random_dork said:


> The best thing that could have happened for DirecTV in Nor Cal has taken place: Cal has been a disapointment overall, Stanford has been decent but not in the North Divsion race, and the SF Giants are still playing. If the Giants had fallen out of the race and/or Cal/Stanford was undefeated I think there were would be a much bigger outcry. But the Giants (and A's) were at the top of the Sports heap and the 49ers are playing well has meant CFB hasn't gotten the publicity on local news and CSN.


----------



## reverett1522

I ordered Comcast on Sunday, have a self-install kit coming this week and will have them set up in time for Pac12 basketball. Total bill after taxes, with a DVR and extra HD receiver is $150/month with internet and phone included. Comes in $20 less than Directv and Comcast internet combined. 

The online offerings from Comcast are superior, PQ from what I have seen is fine, DVR is a little pricey, but no "lease fee" up front, and I can install it myself (already have internet from Comcast).

Going to suspend my DTV account for the season and if I like Comcast I'll cancel DTV and pay my early termination fee, which will be made up by the cost savings with Comcast.


----------



## widmark

WebTraveler said:


> Truth be told is that I wouldn't ever trust what a Directv exec has to say. They lie through their teeth. It's OK to make a business decision not to carry the channel, it's not OK to lie about it.


Neither the Pac 12 nor DTV are saints in this. But the Pac 12 demanding record fees or cutting off broadcasting is creating a very bad dynamic for us fans. Compare this to DTV wanting something less than record pricing for its national subscribers, many of whom could care less about the Pac 12.

The Pac 12 is pushing pricing up, and fracturing availability so its tough to know year by year what you can watch on any given network. Also, what the Pac 12 does will influence what other sports conferences do, so higher pricing and fracturing will broaden.


----------



## WebTraveler

widmark said:


> Neither the Pac 12 nor DTV are saints in this. But the Pac 12 demanding record fees or cutting off broadcasting is creating a very bad dynamic for us fans. Compare this to DTV wanting something less than record pricing for its national subscribers, many of whom could care less about the Pac 12.
> 
> The Pac 12 is pushing pricing up, and fracturing availability so its tough to know year by year what you can watch on any given network. Also, what the Pac 12 does will influence what other sports conferences do, so higher pricing and fracturing will broaden.


I don't agree here at all. First, when 4 of the top 5 distributors have it and 8 of the largest 10 distributors have it you can't support the argument that the Pac 12 is fragmenting anything.

Second, you have self interest taking over. Directv owns the Root Sports brand 100%. They used to have Pac 12 sports all over it. Now? Almost nothing, a few basketball games airing on Fox will come to Root as an affiliate, but that's it. Did Directv give us a rebate on programming and the fact that Root is spending next to nothing to show nothing on it now? Especially Root Sports NW, can't speak entirely for the other Root outlets, but I'd imagine much of the same.

Root Sports Northwest is so lacking in content right now that it is showing high school football from Seattle area as some of it's live programming. For goodness sake, this is ridiculous. Hey, great for the Seattle-area kids who get on TV, but for those of us in Oregon to get a Tacoma and a Seattle area school? Seriously? If I want high school football I have it in my own backyard and several games are streamed by the way, at no cost. Now sight lines are not great, but heck it's free.

I believe that the RSN is a dying channel concept. As teams and leagues own the channels directly there is little need for the pure, unaffiliated RSN concept. Sure there is enough economy of scale in the large cities to have multiple sports channels, but here in the northwest there simply is not. Pac 12 was a HUGE chunk of the content. We have two part-time channels, CSN-NW that has the Blazers and virtually nothing else and Root NW that have the Mariners and virtually nothing else. (Ok, some soccer) There are so many gaps in the content that is incredible. Each is supposedly commanding a significant sum. Because of the self-interest (w/Root) Directv won't carry CSN-NW anyway. I don't disagree with some reports about Comcast charging too much. but when it is on dozens of other systems you do have to wonder how or why it's not on Directv (or Dish for that matter).

I think even Fox is seeing the end....repurposing Speed as a sports channel for all sports. They see in 10 years many of their sports channels simply will not exist, or if they do they will be giving away ownership and control to the teams.


----------



## kick4fun

WebTraveler said:


> I don't agree here at all. First, when 4 of the top 5 distributors have it and 8 of the largest 10 distributors have it you can't support the argument that the Pac 12 is fragmenting anything.
> 
> Second, you have self interest taking over. Directv owns the Root Sports brand 100%. They used to have Pac 12 sports all over it. Now? Almost nothing, a few basketball games airing on Fox will come to Root as an affiliate, but that's it. Did Directv give us a rebate on programming and the fact that Root is spending next to nothing to show nothing on it now? Especially Root Sports NW, can't speak entirely for the other Root outlets, but I'd imagine much of the same.
> 
> Root Sports Northwest is so lacking in content right now that it is showing high school football from Seattle area as some of it's live programming. For goodness sake, this is ridiculous. Hey, great for the Seattle-area kids who get on TV, but for those of us in Oregon to get a Tacoma and a Seattle area school? Seriously? If I want high school football I have it in my own backyard and several games are streamed by the way, at no cost. Now sight lines are not great, but heck it's free.
> 
> I believe that the RSN is a dying channel concept. As teams and leagues own the channels directly there is little need for the pure, unaffiliated RSN concept. Sure there is enough economy of scale in the large cities to have multiple sports channels, but here in the northwest there simply is not. Pac 12 was a HUGE chunk of the content. We have two part-time channels, CSN-NW that has the Blazers and virtually nothing else and Root NW that have the Mariners and virtually nothing else. (Ok, some soccer) There are so many gaps in the content that is incredible. Each is supposedly commanding a significant sum. Because of the self-interest (w/Root) Directv won't carry CSN-NW anyway. I don't disagree with some reports about Comcast charging too much. but when it is on dozens of other systems you do have to wonder how or why it's not on Directv (or Dish for that matter).
> 
> I think even Fox is seeing the end....repurposing Speed as a sports channel for all sports. They see in 10 years many of their sports channels simply will not exist, or if they do they will be giving away ownership and control to the teams.


I wonder if Directv asked for some kickbacks to offset the cost of Root Sports. I agree 100% that Soot Sports NW is complete junk now.


----------



## WebTraveler

kick4fun said:


> I wonder if Directv asked for some kickbacks to offset the cost of Root Sports. I agree 100% that Soot Sports NW is complete junk now.


Kickbacks from whom? Directv owns 100% of Root Sports!


----------



## kick4fun

WebTraveler said:


> Kickbacks from whom? Directv owns 100% of Root Sports!


You didn't understand my question.. I wonder if Directv wanted either lower pricing or some sort of kickback because they are losing revenue by owning a Sports Network that doesn't bring anything to the table (i.e. no commercial revenue because they have nothing to show).

They probably can't afford the Pac12 Networks because they are in over their heads by owning Root Sports and now can't broadcast anything other that M's games and local high school sports. Real Bummer!


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"kick4fun" said:


> You didn't understand my question.. I wonder if Directv wanted either lower pricing or some sort of kickback because they are losing revenue by owning a Sports Network that doesn't bring anything to the table (i.e. no commercial revenue because they have nothing to show).
> 
> They probably can't afford the Pac12 Networks because they are in over their heads by owning Root Sports and now can't broadcast anything other that M's games and local high school sports. Real Bummer!


Another reason we don't need 24/7 RSNs.


----------



## kick4fun

TheRatPatrol said:


> Another reason we don't need 24/7 RSNs.


Very good point!


----------



## widmark

WebTraveler said:


> I don't agree here at all. First, when 4 of the top 5 distributors have it and 8 of the largest 10 distributors have it you can't support the argument that the Pac 12 is fragmenting anything.


Your math makes the fragmentation point and you can't support that there isn't growing fragmentation. 8 of 10 and 4 of 5 are less than 100% = fragmentation. Second, when each conference, professional sports network, etc has less than 100% coverage, and each deal is for a different combination of distributors, then you have a growing spaghetti of deals out there. You want Pac 12? Dish or Time Warner Cable. You want MLB, NFL, or Big 10? Then you might need Dish and DTV, or cable and Dish. With each little sports conference creating its own fifedom a la Pac 12, its going to get worse. Third, these programming deals change year to year, so even if you pick DTV thinking you have access to certain sports, it changes the next as it did here with the Pac 12. Its also getting more expensive because of record deals that the Pac 12 is driving in the marketplace.



WebTraveler said:


> They see in 10 years many of their sports channels simply will not exist, or if they do they will be giving away ownership and control to the teams.


You may be right DTV is protecting its turf. Have no idea but I do know that the Pac 12 "No Soup For You" trick on DTV is harming you and me, and is contagious to other sports franchises if they are successful.


----------



## WebTraveler

widmark said:


> Your math makes the fragmentation point and you can't support that there isn't growing fragmentation. 8 of 10 and 4 of 5 are less than 100% = fragmentation. Second, when each conference, professional sports network, etc has less than 100% coverage, and each deal is for a different combination of distributors, then you have a growing spaghetti of deals out there. You want Pac 12? Dish or Time Warner Cable. You want MLB, NFL, or Big 10? Then you might need Dish and DTV, or cable and Dish. With each little sports conference creating its own fifedom a la Pac 12, its going to get worse. Third, these programming deals change year to year, so even if you pick DTV thinking you have access to certain sports, it changes the next as it did here with the Pac 12. Its also getting more expensive because of record deals that the Pac 12 is driving in the marketplace.


How is this different from what we had before? Want the NBA Trail Blazers, need cable. CSN NW is not on satellite. Philadelphia = same story. It is not any different than before. Oregon Ducks were on CSN-NW as well locally.....but if I want the out of town multi-sports packs that gave me the rest of the Pac 12 and other conferences then I couldn't get it all with just Comcast. I could get some, but just not all.

Now I can get the entire Pac 12 on my dial and the internet by going w/Dish or any of the other providers, except Directv. My immediate problem is solved. I still don't get the Blazers, but decided not to go to Comcast. Msde the decision it was not worth it to me in the end.

There will be customer fragmentation so long as sports channels cost so much.


----------



## widmark

WebTraveler said:


> How is this different from what we had before?


Very different!

DTV was the king of sports availability for years, and now apparently Dish takes the crown for 2012/13, at least from a Pac 12 fan perspective. I don't care which network has the programming mix that I want, but the ever-changing deals and sports fiefdoms cropping up make it a bigger risk that you will lock yourself into a contract with cable or sat and lose programming you had when you signed.

My situation is probably the poster child for what I am saying. I installed DTV a few mos ago and the Pac 12 games disappeared after being on DTV a long time (thanks Larry Scott). Its possible we'll have a new sports tv king in 2013/14 who knows. It never used to change this rapidly or cost so much.



WebTraveler said:


> There will be customer fragmentation so long as sports channels cost so much.


Agreed. Costs will be going up more too. Less programming, more cost is the trend. And the Pac 12 is leading the cause with their record price requirements and hardball tactics.


----------



## WebTraveler

widmark said:


> Very different!
> 
> DTV was the king of sports availability for years, and now apparently Dish takes the crown for 2012/13, at least from a Pac 12 fan perspective. I don't care which network has the programming mix that I want, but the ever-changing deals and sports fiefdoms cropping up make it a bigger risk that you will lock yourself into a contract with cable or sat and lose programming you had when you signed.
> 
> My situation is probably the poster child for what I am saying. I installed DTV a few mos ago and the Pac 12 games disappeared after being on DTV a long time (thanks Larry Scott). Its possible we'll have a new sports tv king in 2013/14 who knows. It never used to change this rapidly or cost so much.


Common, really now. Directv still has Speed, Sportsman, Pursuit and this crap in lower tiers, yet it cannot carry Pac 12 in anything other than a sports tier? You could argue that car racing, fishing and the like are more niche than college football and basketball.

A few months ago you were fully aware the games were not on Directv. You knew this when you signed up. I would agree that Directv may have been manipulative on the subject - publicly they say they want the channel, but privately they never had any intent to carry it.

I am all for ala carte and retaining the channels I want. This way I can give up Speed, Fuel, Sportsman, Pursuit, etc. But remember the broadcasters and the distributors set up the current system - they never wanted ala carte - and they don't have it because they didn't want it.

But ala carte would work and only work if all are treated equally. You can't say keep Speed in a lower tier package, but put Pac 12 in a sports only tier. Why would I have to pay for all that stuff on Speed, for example?



widmark said:


> Agreed. Costs will be going up more too. Less programming, more cost is the trend. And the Pac 12 is leading the cause with their record price requirements and hardball tactics.


Really now. How much is Root Sports charging for the carriage of it's channel - Root Sports NW? More than the reported 90 cents per sub. for the Pac 12. And you have tons more sports on Pac 12 then you do Root! Especially right now, in the winter. How is 90 cents a record when Laker channel wants $3.95 for a channel that is part-time....what's on in the summer? early fall? Pac 12 is at least a year round channel.


----------



## widmark

I think we've established that we don't agree. I'm moving along!



WebTraveler said:


> A few months ago you were fully aware the games were not on Directv. You knew this when you signed up.


BTW, I didn't know P12 would be canned on DTV. Shame on me for not keeping up on all the mini disputes going on between franchises and carriers... or I would have picked Dish, although I'm not sure Dish had NFL yet. Thats another issue with fracturing the market so much... you need to troll forums to stay up on it.

Good luck to you.


----------



## woj027

I now know why the pac12 hasn't made a deal with directv. 

They don't want national coverage, else the whole nation would have seen the pac12 refs blow two bug calls in the OSU/UW game 
1 missed helmet to helmet call resulting in a turnover
2 standing over the ball not letting osu snap the ball causing a delay of game

OSU did play like garbage. And UW did play awesome. But those two calls sure hurt OSU momentum


----------



## kick4fun

woj027 said:


> I now know why the pac12 hasn't made a deal with directv.
> 
> They don't want national coverage, else the whole nation would have seen the pac12 refs blow two bug calls in the OSU/UW game
> 1 missed helmet to helmet call resulting in a turnover
> 2 standing over the ball not letting osu snap the ball causing a delay of game
> 
> OSU did play like garbage. And UW did play awesome. But those two calls sure hurt OSU momentum


Huck the Fuskies!


----------



## woj027

kick4fun said:


> Huck the Fuskies!


indeed.


----------



## WebTraveler

woj027 said:


> They don't want national coverage, else the whole nation would have seen the pac12 refs blow two bug calls in the OSU/UW game


If that was the case the channel would not be on Dish. Dish has the same national reach as Directv.


----------



## DishNetworkNewbie

Hello everyone. I am new to the forum and to Dish Network as well, so I apologize in advance for what may be a stupid question and a lengthy one as well. To lay the ground work, I live in Utah and I had been with Directv for over 10 years, but I made the switch to Dish Network the first part of October for the Pac-12 Network. Everything was great until the Morning of November first. I noticed the pac-12 networks were missing from the guide and were not available. I have spent the last two days talking to various levels of Dish's support as well as the actual Dish Salesman and even the installer. I have not received the same answer twice yet. The local salesman tells me my zip code says I should get them no problem, but the actual Dish Network support guys have told me both yes and no so I don't know if they even know. I was under the understanding that with the Top 250 package that I have, I would get the channel , but some Dish techs have told me I have to buy the multi-sports package which I don't believe is the case. The last one I talked to turned the channels on for me for 3 months while I work this all out, but do you know what I should expect as part of my package 3 months from now? My parents live very nearby and still receive the channel even with a lesser package as well.


----------



## bnwrx

DishNetworkNewbie said:


> Hello everyone. I am new to the forum and to Dish Network as well, so I apologize in advance for what may be a stupid question and a lengthy one as well. To lay the ground work, I live in Utah and I had been with Directv for over 10 years, but I made the switch to Dish Network the first part of October for the Pac-12 Network. Everything was great until the Morning of November first. I noticed the pac-12 networks were missing from the guide and were not available. I have spent the last two days talking to various levels of Dish's support as well as the actual Dish Salesman and even the installer. I have not received the same answer twice yet. The local salesman tells me my zip code says I should get them no problem, but the actual Dish Network support guys have told me both yes and no so I don't know if they even know. I was under the understanding that with the Top 250 package that I have, I would get the channel , but some Dish techs have told me I have to buy the multi-sports package which I don't believe is the case. The last one I talked to turned the channels on for me for 3 months while I work this all out, but do you know what I should expect as part of my package 3 months from now? My parents live very nearby and still receive the channel even with a lesser package as well.


Found this in an article dated 9-8-2012:
"....Pac-12 Networks is available to all DISH customers as a free preview for a limited time. It is included in America's Top 120+ package and above for customers in Pac-12 territory (which includes the six states with Pac-12 schools) and available nationwide in the Multi-Sport Pack for $9 per month."

Full article here: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/44297/dish-will-be-the-pac-12-networks-satellite-provider

Good luck.....


----------



## James Long

FYI: The preview of Pac-12 on DISH has ended.


----------



## Laxguy

Y'all have the Ducks vs. the Trojans tomorrow afternoon. In SF, it's on Fox Ch. 2......

Don't forget the LSU Tigers v. The Crimson Tide. Hooooo-aaaah!


----------



## WebTraveler

bnwrx said:


> Found this in an article dated 9-8-2012:
> "....Pac-12 Networks is available to all DISH customers as a free preview for a limited time. It is included in America's Top 120+ package and above for customers in Pac-12 territory (which includes the six states with Pac-12 schools) and available nationwide in the Multi-Sport Pack for $9 per month."
> 
> Full article here: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/44297/dish-will-be-the-pac-12-networks-satellite-provider
> 
> Good luck.....


Yea, but he says he is from Utah, isn't that Pac-12 territory? It's not Pac 10 territory, but last time I checked we expanded to 12 with Utah included.


----------



## WebTraveler

Where in Utah are you living? Last I checked Utah was still in the Pac 12.....I am puzzled unless they define you as outside the grid



DishNetworkNewbie said:


> Hello everyone. I am new to the forum and to Dish Network as well, so I apologize in advance for what may be a stupid question and a lengthy one as well. To lay the ground work, I live in Utah and I had been with Directv for over 10 years, but I made the switch to Dish Network the first part of October for the Pac-12 Network. Everything was great until the Morning of November first. I noticed the pac-12 networks were missing from the guide and were not available. I have spent the last two days talking to various levels of Dish's support as well as the actual Dish Salesman and even the installer. I have not received the same answer twice yet. The local salesman tells me my zip code says I should get them no problem, but the actual Dish Network support guys have told me both yes and no so I don't know if they even know. I was under the understanding that with the Top 250 package that I have, I would get the channel , but some Dish techs have told me I have to buy the multi-sports package which I don't believe is the case. The last one I talked to turned the channels on for me for 3 months while I work this all out, but do you know what I should expect as part of my package 3 months from now? My parents live very nearby and still receive the channel even with a lesser package as well.


----------



## sdk009

The D* red button scoreboard is saying to "check local listings" for the UCLA-Arizona game that's on the PAC-12 Net.
WHY NOT TELL THE TRUTH AND SAY: "Sorry PAC-12 fans, we could care less what you want."


----------



## Laxguy

sdk009 said:


> The D* red button scoreboard is saying to "check local listings" for the UCLA-Arizona game that's on the PAC-12 Net.
> WHY NOT TELL THE TRUTH AND SAY: "Sorry PAC-12 fans, we could care less what you want."


That's not the truth. Even though it was shouted.

Besides, we get almost all the top ten teams in games today, including The Duck and Trojans. 
The real game is on at 5 PM PDT, CBS.


----------



## WazzuCougs

It appears some Dish subscribers may have experienced some problems when the free preview ended, according to this thread on the Dish Network forum:

https://support.dish.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2928


----------



## boukengreen

Laxguy said:


> That's not the truth. Even though it was shouted.
> 
> Besides, we get almost all the top ten teams in games today, including The Duck and Trojans.
> The real game is on at 5 PM PDT, CBS.


Can't wait for it RTR


----------



## Laxguy

boukengreen said:


> Can't wait for it RTR


Well, they are, at least at the opening of the second half. Les Miles better get it together if he want to stay head coach @ Baton Rouge.


----------



## DishNetworkNewbie

In answering your question, I live in central Utah. To be more specific, about 2 hours south of Salt Lake City. I am starting to think they are only considering the immediate metro area as the footprint rather that the state itself or something. It is just really frustrating to get different answers from every CSR you talk to. Apparently they are not even sure.


----------



## WebTraveler

DishNetworkNewbie said:


> In answering your question, I live in central Utah. To be more specific, about 2 hours south of Salt Lake City. I am starting to think they are only considering the immediate metro area as the footprint rather that the state itself or something. It is just really frustrating to get different answers from every CSR you talk to. Apparently they are not even sure.


That may be the answer, although I do expect some hiccups along the way. Email the CEO's office and you will get an answer. [email protected] It works well and you get assigned a specific guy to your question and if something is wrong they will fix it.


----------



## woj027

I'm hoping that DirecTV and Pac-12 get a deal done. There are still some good games left in the Football season that have the potential to be picked up by the pac-12, thus DirecTV subscribers would miss out on those games unless a deal gets done.


----------



## thepoloman33

woj027 said:


> I'm hoping that DirecTV and Pac-12 get a deal done. There are still some good games left in the Football season that have the potential to be picked up by the pac-12, thus DirecTV subscribers would miss out on those games unless a deal gets done.


ASU at USC at noon PST Saturday will be on Pac12 channel. Pretty big game there.

-Matt


----------



## sigma1914

thepoloman33 said:


> ASU at USC at noon PST Saturday will be on Pac12 channel. Pretty big game there.
> 
> -Matt


How so? Neither team is sniffing a national title & USC will crush ASU. The USC/UCLA game the following week is at least for the Pac12 South.


----------



## sdk009

sigma1914 said:


> How so? Neither team is sniffing a national title & USC will crush ASU. The USC/UCLA game the following week is at least for the Pac12 South.


There's more to NCAA football than "sniffing the national tittle."

ASU @ USC & Utah @ Washington (both games to carried on the PAC-12 Net on 11/10) have major implications as ASU & Washington both need one more win to be bowl eligible. It would be nice to see those games as well as the nine basketball games also scheduled this weekend on the PAC-12 Net.

Just really disappointed in D* that there hasn't been any movement towards coming to a deal with the Conference. I have no commitment left, but my only other choices are Comcrap & E*, and neither of those seem palatable.


----------



## thepoloman33

sigma1914 said:


> How so? Neither team is sniffing a national title & USC will crush ASU. The USC/UCLA game the following week is at least for the Pac12 South.


USC needs to get past ASU first.

If you exclude the Stanford - OSU game, what's the next best Pac12 game this weekend?

I was surprised to see Colorado v Arizona make it on FX over ASU v USC.

-Matt


----------



## woj027

thepoloman33 said:


> USC needs to get past ASU first.
> 
> If you exclude the Stanford - OSU game, what's the next best Pac12 game this weekend?
> 
> I was surprised to see Colorado v Arizona make it on FX over ASU v USC.
> 
> -Matt


Yea, some of the network picks are kind of interesting.


----------



## woj027

argh..... just saw that Nov 17 OSU v Cal will be on Pac-12 network at 7:30 pm no less. 

going to have to find a hole in the wall bar that doesn't have DirecTV to watch the game. and has comcrap.

I wonder if I could send my bar tab to DirecTV for reimbursement?


----------



## Go Beavs

woj027 said:


> argh..... just saw that Nov 17 OSU v Cal will be on Pac-12 network at 7:30 pm no less.
> 
> going to have to find a hole in the wall bar that doesn't have DirecTV to watch the game. and has comcrap.
> 
> I wonder if I could send my bar tab to DirecTV for reimbursement?


Oh geez... I feel your pain. I really dislike those late games and would much rather watch from my couch than drive home from Corvallis at 11 o'clock at night.

Maybe the clouds will part and we'll see some movement on the DIRECTV/PAC-12 front. I'd better start calling around for hotel accommodations though...


----------



## sigma1914

sdk009 said:


> There's more to NCAA football than "sniffing the national tittle."
> 
> ASU @ USC & Utah @ Washington (both games to carried on the PAC-12 Net on 11/10) have major implications as ASU & Washington both need one more win to be bowl eligible. It would be nice to see those games as well as the nine basketball games also scheduled this weekend on the PAC-12 Net.
> 
> Just really disappointed in D* that there hasn't been any movement towards coming to a deal with the Conference. I have no commitment left, but my only other choices are Comcrap & E*, and neither of those seem palatable.


Bowl eligibility? :lol: Almost everyone makes a bowl nowadays.


----------



## kick4fun

sigma1914 said:


> Bowl eligibility? :lol: Almost everyone makes a bowl nowadays.


We haven't seen one since the Holiday Bowl of 2003..


----------



## woj027

Go Beavs said:


> Oh geez... I feel your pain. I really dislike those late games and would much rather watch from my couch than drive home from Corvallis at 11 o'clock at night.
> 
> Maybe the clouds will part and we'll see some movement on the DIRECTV/PAC-12 front. I'd better start calling around for hotel accommodations though...


Yea, I'm hoping and praying civil war (just got tickets) is a noon or 3:30 game. I can't imagine the traffic nightmare of a7:30 pm game.


----------



## sdk009

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/11/05/In-Depth/Los-Angeles.aspx

According to the SBD article, the PAC-12 Net is only asking $.80 per sub. That seems reasonible to me.


----------



## woj027

sdk009 said:


> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/11/05/In-Depth/Los-Angeles.aspx
> 
> According to the SBD article, the PAC-12 Net is only asking $.80 per sub. That seems reasonible to me.


$0.80 at 6 channels (which the Pac-12 wants DirecTV to carry is ....) $3.20 for the package, which Pac-12 doesn't want to split up to DirecTV

And that $0.80 probably is not the rate for pac-12 national, probably like $1.20 or so, so that $3.20 is more like $3.60


----------



## WebTraveler

Go Beavs said:


> Oh geez... I feel your pain. I really dislike those late games and would much rather watch from my couch than drive home from Corvallis at 11 o'clock at night.
> 
> Maybe the clouds will part and we'll see some movement on the DIRECTV/PAC-12 front. I'd better start calling around for hotel accommodations though...


yea it sucked last week. I didn't home to metro Portland until 2am in the morning. These national TV games from ESPN have tons of commercials and the game just takes forever.

It's ridiculous, the few hotels in Corvallis generally want two nights minimum during game days.

This new Pac 12 TV contract is great for the viewer, but goodness, it's killing the in stadium fan. In the long term I can't see renewing the seats if this is the new normal. I can watch at home and not be exhausted.


----------



## woj027

Yea and we don't find out the kick off time for the civil war until the 18th. Imagine in the pac-12 puts it on at 7:30. You won't get home until 4am with all the traffic


----------



## Sandra

Well, tomorrow's Arizona State-USC game is the first time for me that there is a game I would absolutely have checked out, but cannot. Bummer. 


Sandra


----------



## sigma1914

Sandra said:


> Well, tomorrow's Arizona State-USC game is the first time for me that there is a game I would absolutely have checked out, but cannot. Bummer.
> 
> Sandra


USC by 17+...easy win.


----------



## Sandra

sigma1914 said:


> USC by 17+...easy win.


No matter who wins I would definitely like to check the game out...disappointed that I cannot.

Sandra


----------



## sigma1914

Sandra said:


> No matter who wins I would definitely like to check the game out...disappointed that I cannot.
> 
> Sandra


More so than Oregon St verse Stanford or Texas A&M vs Alabama?


----------



## amh84

There was an article in this morning's Arizona Daily Star stating that the PAC-12 was requesting $.90 per sub. I'm a big Arizona Basketball fan, so while I was disappointed that certain football games were not aired on Directv I am pretty upset that 11 basketball games will not be aired.

I find it unacceptable that Directpromise.com/pac12 refers those of us affected to the online radio streams even though sports cannot be streamed via the internet. Everytime I am forced to miss a game, I will be calling both the PAC-12 and Directv to express my disdain.


----------



## woj027

amh84 said:


> There was an article in this morning's Arizona Daily Star stating that the PAC-12 was requesting $.90 per sub. I'm a big Arizona Basketball fan, so while I was disappointed that certain football games were not aired on Directv I am pretty upset that 11 basketball games will not be aired.
> 
> I find it unacceptable that Directpromise.com/pac12 refers those of us affected to the online radio streams even though sports cannot be streamed via the internet. Everytime I am forced to miss a game, I will be calling both the PAC-12 and Directv to express my disdain.


Since no one will go on the record the per sub price is still unconfirmed. a week ago is was $0.80 a sub. But I think that is per channel and Pac-12 only wants to sell a package of 7 channels ..


----------



## Sandra

sigma1914 said:


> More so than Oregon St verse Stanford or Texas A&M vs Alabama?


Lots of interesting games to check out this week, especially since my favorite team...THE Ohio State Buckeyes...is off.

Arizona State-USC, Oregon State-Stanford, Baylor-Oklahoma, Texas A&M-Alabama, and Kansas State-TCU will all have my attention. I'll also drop in on other games with conference ramifications as time allows.

Just a little bummed that for the first time in a very long time one of the games I would definitely check out is not available to me.

I pay DirecTV an insane amount of money per month, and I'm certainly willing to pay insane-plus-x to have all the games I want to see available to me.

Just my opinion. YMMV.

Sandra


----------



## Will94

I've got DirecTV and SportsPack and don't get the Pac 12 Network nor do I get the startup Comcast SportsNet Houston. I don't give a rat's a$$ about the Rockets, but there's something wrong with paying what I do and not even getting my local team.

The Pac 12 network has carried a number of games this season that I would have watched because I am a night owl and love late night, West Coast football. However, it's hard to justify paying for more than one channel of it outside of certain college football Saturdays when they carry multiple games.


----------



## sigma1914

Sandra said:


> Lots of interesting games to check out this week, especially since my favorite team...THE Ohio State Buckeyes...is off.
> 
> Arizona State-USC, Oregon State-Stanford, Baylor-Oklahoma, Texas A&M-Alabama, and Kansas State-TCU will all have my attention. I'll also drop in on other games with conference ramifications as time allows.
> 
> Just a little bummed that for the first time in a very long time one of the games I would definitely check out is not available to me.
> 
> I pay DirecTV an insane amount of money per month, and I'm certainly willing to pay insane-plus-x to have all the games I want to see available to me.
> 
> Just my opinion. YMMV.
> 
> Sandra


Just want to note, I was asking out of curiosity and not attacking what you like. 

I'll miss P12 for basketball (Arizona), but since all important games were available nationally I haven't missed it much.


----------



## DC_SnDvl

One mans "important games" might not be the same as anothers.



sigma1914 said:


> Just want to note, I was asking out of curiosity and not attacking what you like.
> 
> I'll miss P12 for basketball (Arizona), but since all important games were available nationally I haven't missed it much.


----------



## Bambler

It's funny seeing pac-12 or xfinity/pac-12 commercials on directv. 

The amount of irony on both sides is funny to me; one side hoping for customers and the other trying to cash in on their new mantra.

Another thing, burying the discussion here--while keeping the lakers discussion in full view--while both having equally bad rhetoric is telling...


----------



## DawgLink

"DC_SnDvl" said:


> One mans "important games" might not be the same as anothers.


This.

Just based off the price being rumored, I can not believe the Pac-12 wants the money that they are asking for with carriers.

The idea of DirecTV giving in and forcing the price onto a country that for the high, high majority will never watch OR will watch at most 2-3 times a year?

Holy goodness, please no. I find it irrelevant if others say "Well, I hate Channel X and I pay for it!"....so what? Why should we keep giving in to these regional channels with pathetic national programming outside of a few games a year?


----------



## Laxguy

Well, I can't believe it either- that is, if anything like $4 is being demanded nationally. I could understand that amount if it were limited to subs in the Pac12 area, then divided among the rest of the sub base, guessing it'd be closer to a buck per sub. Not really palatable, but not to choke over. 

Does anyone really have a line on what prices are in play? Rumor websites don't count....


----------



## bnwrx

I do appreciate the passion of the PAC12 viewer base, but this pretty much sums it up for me:


DawgLink said:


> *....
> 
> The idea of DirecTV giving in and forcing the price onto a country that for the high, high majority will never watch OR will watch at most 2-3 times a year?....*


Very succinctly put.


----------



## reverett1522

woj027 said:


> Yea, some of the network picks are kind of interesting.


ESPN, FOX/FX, Pac12Net rotate the order they get to pick games so you'll see some matchups that in the past would have been on ESPN as a "premiere" matchup on all networks throughout the season.


----------



## WebTraveler

DawgLink said:


> This.
> 
> The idea of DirecTV giving in and forcing the price onto a country that for the high, high majority will never watch OR will watch at most 2-3 times a year?


Yea, but this is not true. The deal is putting the network in place for those in Pac 12 territory, NOT the nation. The remaining part of the nation would get the channel in the sports pack, a deal in which they would pay extra for.

LA already has multiple sports channels om Directv, two Fox Sports Nets and most of the rest of us have no more than one Fox sports Net....we pay the same rates as LA and yet LA gets more sports networks, so who is subsidizing who here?

And I don't watch Speed, Fuel or some of these other (really) niche channels, yet I am subsidizing the viewing of these channels?

Here in Oregon we can't even get our NBA Trail Blazers on Directv because Directv favors it's own Root Sports NW subsidiary (which has NOTHING on it outside of the Mariners and in the winter the cupboard is almost completely bare - we do have Seattle area high school football). CSN NW (blazers) costs less per sub than Root NW does according to published numbers.....

Now also Pac 12 is charging .80 per sub according some reports. Root NW is charging $2.40 accoriding to reports. Root used to carry Pac 12, so in theory instead of $2.40 cost for Root should drop for the loss of Pac 12 content, meaing that those dollars can shift over and cover the .80 charge for Pac 12.

So who is subsidizing who here? Your understanding of the situation is flawed and wrong. Sorry to burst that bubble.

And, beyond that most of the rates between providers are similar....so the new mantra with "Directv is pay the same and get less!" In fact, my new Dish Network bill (even w/o considering the new sign up rebates, etc.) is less than Directv. Comcast bills are roughly the same as Directv. So how does a competitor do it and charge the same or less than Directv?

So if you are still with Directv I'd call them up and get whatever deal you want...they'll pay. When terminated Directv they offered me the kitchen sink, $10 credit for 2 years, free HBO, showtime, etc. for 6 months, free sports pack for 6 months, free NFL Sunday Ticket, brand new equipment, etc. I probably could have even held out for more. But I said no and they kept pushing more.....so do it, call and get a credit for yourself. I agree sports channel costs are going up......but Directv, owning three of them directly, is just as much of the problem as anyone else....they lost content and they refuse to adjust their price for it, so now they make even more money....charge the same for Root but have little or no cost on content anymore!


----------



## DawgLink

WebTraveler said:


> Yea, but this is not true. The deal is putting the network in place for those in Pac 12 territory, NOT the nation. The remaining part of the nation would get the channel in the sports pack, a deal in which they would pay extra for.


And many like myself have the Sports Pack and do not want a price increase off that based on a West-Coast channel that AGAIN few watch but 2-3 times a year.



> And I don't watch Speed, Fuel or some of these other (really) niche channels, yet I am subsidizing the viewing of these channels?


So what? Why add more of those then?



> Now also Pac 12 is charging .80 per sub according some reports.


I have seen different numbers from different reports.



> Root NW is charging $2.40 accoriding to reports. Root used to carry Pac 12, so in theory instead of $2.40 cost for Root should drop for the loss of Pac 12 content, meaing that those dollars can shift over and cover the .80 charge for Pac 12.


And that price is absurd. As others have said, your market compares to the NY market in terms of ridiculously inflated prices.



> Your understanding of the situation is flawed and wrong. Sorry to burst that bubble.


There is nothing flawed whatsoever in what I am saying as few if anyone wants this channel outside of the Pac-12 fans mostly on the West-Coast. Whether they add it to the Sports Pack, Essential, or whatever....the price the Channel wants is ABSURD with the utterly pathetic content for virtually the entire year.


----------



## DC_SnDvl

They do this with the B1G Network now? Why would anyone expect any of the other conference networks to agree to anything less?



bnwrx said:


> I do appreciate the passion of the PAC12 viewer base, but this pretty much sums it up for me:
> 
> Very succinctly put.





DawgLink said:


> This.
> 
> The idea of DirecTV giving in and forcing the price onto a country that for the high, high majority will never watch OR will watch at most 2-3 times a year?


----------



## WebTraveler

DawgLink said:


> And many like myself have the Sports Pack and do not want a price increase off that based on a West-Coast channel that AGAIN few watch but 2-3 times a year.


Yea, so what? Times change all the time. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean we remain in the past. And frankly, Pac 12 has alums and fans all over the country that do want the channel. I know folks in the deep south always resist change, well unfortunately the world just does not work that way. Change is inevitable.



DawgLink said:


> So what? Why add more of those then?


So let's remain in the past? So why add NHL Network, NFL Network, etc. over the years?

Maybe it's time to pull some sports channels off that are not getting good viewership and have poor content. (i.e. Root Sports NW and the others).

Life changes every day. I already cannot watch the Portland Trail Blazers on Directv because they favor their own 100% controlled Root Sports over CSN-NW.



DawgLink said:


> I have seen different numbers from different reports.
> And that price is absurd. As others have said, your market compares to the NY market in terms of ridiculously inflated prices.


Yep, but that price goes right to Directv as the owner of Root Sports. Directv is just as much a cause of the problem on sports channels as anyone else. Mike White talks a good game, but then fails to look in the mirror. Root Sports has an increase over the past 7 or 8 years just above the national average on sports channels. Main difference is Mr. White's own sports channels have very little content today, so he's raking in the cash on Root....they are charging premium rates and showing high school football, which costs them next to nothing.



DawgLink said:


> There is nothing flawed whatsoever in what I am saying as few if anyone wants this channel outside of the Pac-12 fans mostly on the West-Coast. Whether they add it to the Sports Pack, Essential, or whatever....the price the Channel wants is ABSURD with the utterly pathetic content for virtually the entire year.


I flat disagree with that statement. The content of the Pac 12 Network costs less on Pac 12 Network (for more content) than Root Sports (or any other west coast RSN charges).


----------



## WebTraveler

DawgLink said:


> And many like myself have the Sports Pack and do not want a price increase off that based on a West-Coast channel that AGAIN few watch but 2-3 times a year.


Yea, so what? Times change all the time. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean we remain in the past. And frankly, Pac 12 has alums and fans all over the country that do want the channel. I know folks in the deep south always resist change, well unfortunately the world just does not work that way. Change is inevitable.



DawgLink said:


> So what? Why add more of those then?


So let's remain in the past? So why add NHL Network, NFL Network, etc. over the years?

Maybe it's time to pull some sports channels off that are not getting good viewership and have poor content. (i.e. Root Sports NW and the others).

Life changes every day. I already cannot watch the Portland Trail Blazers on Directv because they favor their own 100% controlled Root Sports over CSN-NW.



DawgLink said:


> I have seen different numbers from different reports.
> And that price is absurd. As others have said, your market compares to the NY market in terms of ridiculously inflated prices.


Yep, but that price goes right to Directv as the owner of Root Sports. Directv is just as much a cause of the problem on sports channels as anyone else. Mike White talks a good game, but then fails to look in the mirror. Root Sports has an increase over the past 7 or 8 years just above the national average on sports channels. Main difference is Mr. White's own sports channels have very little content today, so he's raking in the cash on Root....they are charging premium rates and showing high school football, which costs them next to nothing.



DawgLink said:


> There is nothing flawed whatsoever in what I am saying as few if anyone wants this channel outside of the Pac-12 fans mostly on the West-Coast. Whether they add it to the Sports Pack, Essential, or whatever....the price the Channel wants is ABSURD with the utterly pathetic content for virtually the entire year.


I flat disagree with that statement. The content of Pac 12 sports costs less on Pac 12 Network (for more content) than Root Sports (or any other west coast RSN charges). So if we pay 80 cents per sub for Pac 12 for the whole thing or $2.40 something on Root for a few games here and there? We have a LOT more content for lower cost. Basically Pac 12 can do the whole thing for a lot less than others and give us better access at the same time.

Fact remains that Pac 12 will probably be the last league owned channel. The grain is so difficult now with the fights Pac 12 is having that it is unlikely any other league will be able to muster wide distribution.


----------



## Laxguy

WebTraveler said:


> Yea, so what? Times change all the time. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean we remain in the past. And frankly, Pac 12 has alums and fans all over the country that do want the channel.


Of course. But in what numbers? Not the number of alums, but those who really want to watch their FB or soccer or BB team?

And, Mr. Traveller, have you any connection with Pac-12 in addition to being a fan?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

WebTraveler said:


> <snip>
> I flat disagree with that statement. The content of Pac 12 sports costs less on Pac 12 Network (for more content) than Root Sports (or any other west coast RSN charges). *So if we pay 80 cents per sub for Pac 12* for the whole thing or $2.40 something on Root for a few games here and there? We have a LOT more content for lower cost. Basically Pac 12 can do the whole thing for a lot less than others and give us better access at the same time.
> 
> Fact remains that Pac 12 will probably be the last league owned channel. The grain is so difficult now with the fights Pac 12 is having that it is unlikely any other league will be able to muster wide distribution.


 The comment in bold brings up a very interesting thought exercise.

Let's say it is 80¢ per sub. If DIRECTV is paying 80¢ per sub then the sub is paying 80+¢.

The question I find myself asking is this a reasonable cost for a single RSN and is it also reasonable to expect that other content providers won't expect that they can get similarly priced carriage agreements in future?

Personally, I think costs per channel per subscriber are in danger of getting out of hand. e.g. If we have 100 channels averaging 75¢ per sub that's $75/mo per subscriber to carry those channels.

I believe that with people using DVRs and functions like AutoHop we can expect it's going to be difficult for broadcasters to maintain ad revenues. Once high carriage deals become the norm, it will be one way for broadcasters to recoup some of that missing ad money further driving up our monthly bills. IMHO, the PAC-12 carriage deal is the line in the sand only beacuse it came at a time when the line needed to be drawn and unfortunately the PAC-12 fans are caught in the middle.

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike


----------



## Bambler

Happy for the Lakers' fans. 

I knew the lines coming out of DirecTV were nothing more than empty rhetoric. Too expensive, don't want non-lakers fans paying or subsidizing for fans. Yeah right. 

Complaining isn't enough as I think DirecTV felt the cancellation pressure as I can't explain them putting foot in mouth after holding out for this long. 

DirecTV being 0 for 2 in two local sports networks for the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (lakers and usc/ucla) wasn't and isn't healthy.


----------



## Devo1237

Man I hope the Lakers distraction helps bring the p12 negotiations back to the table. I'm dying not being able to see some bball!


----------



## woj027

Bambler said:


> Happy for the Lakers' fans.
> 
> I knew the lines coming out of DirecTV were nothing more than empty rhetoric. Too expensive, don't want non-lakers fans paying or subsidizing for fans. Yeah right.
> 
> Complaining isn't enough as I think DirecTV felt the cancellation pressure as I can't explain them putting foot in mouth after holding out for this long.
> 
> DirecTV being 0 for 2 in two local sports networks for the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (lakers and usc/ucla) wasn't and isn't healthy.


yea, but being 0-2 for local in Portland sports (Blazers and OSU/UofO) is apparently healthy. And further, being 0-2 for sports in Seattle ( Blazers -sorry sonics fans and WSU/UW) is also healthy.

our 6 (oregon) and 9 (washington) electoral votes don't mean much to California's 32&#8230;.


----------



## WebTraveler

Laxguy said:


> Of course. But in what numbers? Not the number of alums, but those who really want to watch their FB or soccer or BB team?
> 
> And, Mr. Traveller, have you any connection with Pac-12 in addition to being a fan?


My wife and I are alums of different Pac 12 universities and our kids someday will likely be Pac 12 students, our parents were Pac 12 students, and of course, we hold season tickets to football and attend other sports events.

So no employment connection, alum and fan.


----------



## WebTraveler

Bambler said:


> Happy for the Lakers' fans.
> 
> I knew the lines coming out of DirecTV were nothing more than empty rhetoric. Too expensive, don't want non-lakers fans paying or subsidizing for fans. Yeah right.
> 
> Complaining isn't enough as I think DirecTV felt the cancellation pressure as I can't explain them putting foot in mouth after holding out for this long.
> 
> DirecTV being 0 for 2 in two local sports networks for the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (lakers and usc/ucla) wasn't and isn't healthy.


Yea cancellations had to be significant, it was not looking pretty.


----------



## woj027

As much as I don't like the ducks ( can't use the word hate) it would be great if Phil knight and/or nike campus had directv. It would be great for him to threaten to drop. Because the state of Oregon doesn't have ant clout to push a pac-12 deal


----------



## Laxguy

WebTraveler said:


> My wife and I are alums of different Pac 12 universities and our kids someday will likely be Pac 12 students, our parents were Pac 12 students, and of course, we hold season tickets to football and attend other sports events.
> 
> So no employment connection, alum and fan.


Thanks.

I was slightly dyslexic when I read the first sentence: "My wife and I are alums of 12 different Pac. universities..."!!!


----------



## Bambler

Well, one thing is for certain, DirecTV can never say they don't want non-fans subsidizing programming for fans, less we dig this all back up and laugh. 

I'm sure they paid full price for this package or TWC was willing to discount everyone else they already signed (highly unlikely). 

DirecTV is kind of sleazy in my eyes and they are losing their pristine reputation (at least I held them in that regard prior to this year). If they lose exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket, they may be in trouble in my opinion based on what they are publicly saying and doing.

Which begs to question: where's the pac-12 network and what's their excuse this time?


----------



## Bambler

So NFL, get DirecTV for all you can. If I were you, I would.


----------



## sdk009

Heads up: Civil War (Ore @ Oreg. St) game this Sat (11/24) on the PAC-12 Net (exclusively) at Noon (PST). 
Thanks for nothing D*.


----------



## sigma1914

sdk009 said:


> Heads up: Civil War (Ore @ Oreg. St) game this Sat (11/24) on the PAC-12 Net (exclusively) at Noon (PST).
> Thanks for nothing D*.


Isn't that the network's first ever game with both teams ranked? It's about time they had a decent game ... it only took 13 weeks. Too bad the UCLA verse Stanford game is way more important since Stanford controls their own destiny. Stanford at UCLA gets national coverage on Fox... Fox picked the right game.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Bambler" said:


> Well, one thing is for certain, DirecTV can never say they don't want non-fans subsidizing programming for fans, less we dig this all back up and laugh.
> 
> I'm sure they paid full price for this package or TWC was willing to discount everyone else they already signed (highly unlikely).
> 
> DirecTV is kind of sleazy in my eyes and they are losing their pristine reputation (at least I held them in that regard prior to this year). If they lose exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket, they may be in trouble in my opinion based on what they are publicly saying and doing.
> 
> Which begs to question: where's the pac-12 network and what's their excuse this time?


They won't lose their exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. The NFL wants it limited to a single provider and DirecTV will have first dibs at signing a new deal. It's DirecTV's crown jewel. It isn't going anywhere.


----------



## chillyfl

Insomnia, so instead of counting sheep, I counted games involving both teams that are currently ranked in the BCS Top 25, up through the games this coming weekend. So through week 13, there will have been 39 total games of currently ranked teams and the PAC-12 Networks will have had 6 of those games. By network:

ESPN - 10
ABC - 7.5 (Oregon State vs UCLA was regional coverage split with ESPN2)
FOX - 6
P12N - 6
CBS - 5
NBC - 2
ESPN2 - 1.5 (see above for .5 game explanation)
ESPNG/SPNY/MASN - 1 (Rutgers vs Kent St.)


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> They won't lose their exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. The NFL wants it limited to a single provider and DirecTV will have first dibs at signing a new deal. It's DirecTV's crown jewel. It isn't going anywhere.


It's entirely possible that Directv's Mike White does not like any increase in programming costs and plays hardball.

Really Directv carries the advantage here - it's the only system that has nationwide access (other than Dish). If Directv played hardball then NFL would be stuck negotiating with individual systems across the country to keep the same access level.


----------



## Bambler

NFL required a significant increase for the extension on their contract that runs through next year, I believe. 

One of two things will probably happen:

1. NFL expands out of market distribution significantly.
2. NFL raises the cost even more, by a large margin, for DirecTV to maintain their exclusive position.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Bambler" said:


> NFL required a significant increase for the extension on their contract that runs through next year, I believe.
> 
> One of two things will probably happen:
> 
> 1. NFL expands out of market distribution significantly.
> 2. NFL raises the cost even more, by a large margin, for DirecTV to maintain their exclusive position.


The NFL wants it to be exclusive and limited to one provider. This is by far the most significant agreement in regards to adding and retaining customers. It isn't going anywhere. It never has. There is a reason for that. How many times must this be explained?


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> The NFL wants it to be exclusive and limited to one provider. This is by far the most significant agreement in regards to adding and retaining customers. It isn't going anywhere. It never has. There is a reason for that. How many times must this be explained?


Some people just don't adapt to change, which is always inevitable..


----------



## WebTraveler

Bambler said:


> NFL required a significant increase for the extension on their contract that runs through next year, I believe.
> 
> One of two things will probably happen:
> 
> 1. NFL expands out of market distribution significantly.
> 2. NFL raises the cost even more, by a large margin, for DirecTV to maintain their exclusive position.


Perhaps....two points though, Michael White has complained vigorously about sports costs climbing out of control and has publicly stated he's not putting up with it (despite following the same on his 100% owned sports channels)

But at the same time, how many customers get Directv simply because of NFL Sunday Ticket and would drop if available elsewhere?


----------



## Bambler

What Mr. White says and what he actually does is mutually exclusive. 

Like I said, if the NFL does keep DirecTV as their exclusive provider, they will pay, a lot. 

They had to pay A LOT MORE just to get a measly extension, let alone a new contract. That alone says a lot if the NFL wasn't willing to grant them another X year exclusive contract, instead ripping DirecTV for a tiny extension while they figure things out. 

So NFL, get DirecTV IMO, for all they're worth. Or just expand distribution and get even more. You cannot lose either way.


----------



## sdk009

One final blast of disgust towards D* and its attitude of denial and dis-respect on this last day of the PAC-12 Net showing football. 
If my circumstances were different, I would have dumped D* last summer over this.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sdk009" said:


> One final blast of disgust towards D* and its attitude of denial and dis-respect on this last day of the PAC-12 Net showing football.
> If my circumstances were different, I would have dumped D* last summer over this.


It's too bad that the folks behind the PAC-12 Network never made DirecTV an offer they felt was worth accepting. Hopefully they will be able to keep some of their more prominent games on their own network over the next year and increase their perceived value. They came out of the gate way too ****y and made the disappointing decision to use taxpayer funded university employees as PR mouth pieces to bash the the largest and most powerful national television provider in the country. It was bungled by the PAC-12 Network from the beginning.

DirecTV certainly hasn't appeared to be suffering from the lack of the PAC-12 Network.


----------



## sdk009

Hoosier205 said:


> It's too bad that the folks behind the PAC-12 Network never made DirecTV an offer they felt was worth accepting. Hopefully they will be able to keep some of their more prominent games on their own network over the next year and increase their perceived value. They came out of the gate way too ****y and made the disappointing decision to use taxpayer funded university employees as PR mouth pieces to bash the the largest and most powerful national television provider in the country. It was bungled by the PAC-12 Network from the beginning.
> 
> DirecTV certainly hasn't appeared to be suffering from the lack of the PAC-12 Network.


Nice to see that the end of the football season hasn't detered you jingoistic factless attittude towards D*. 
According (again) to Jon Wilner who wrote on Wednesday "As I've written numerous times, the conference cannot cave: It must hold its ground with DirecTV and Charter, which have been offered *essentially the same deal *as Comcast and DISH and all the other providers that have reached a carriage deal."

Thanks for nothing D*.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sdk009" said:


> Nice to see that the end of the football season hasn't detered you jingoistic factless attittude towards D*.
> According (again) to Jon Wilner who wrote on Wednesday "As I've written numerous times, the conference cannot cave: It must hold its ground with DirecTV and Charter, which have been offered essentially the same deal as Comcast and DISH and all the other providers that have reached a carriage deal."
> 
> Thanks for nothing D*.


Which we all know is a lie. It's not the same deal. It was never the same deal. Wilner is a same hack who has been peddling PAC-12 propaganda from the start in his poorly written and formatted pieces.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Before it gets too far, lets keep it civil. Make your points without making it personal.

Mike


----------



## DC_SnDvl

Hoosier205 said:


> Which we all know is a lie. It's not the same deal. It was never the same deal. Wilner is a same hack who has been peddling PAC-12 propaganda from the start in his poorly written and formatted pieces.


Unless you can provide copies of the deals you are just as much of lie telling hack


----------



## Hoosier205

"DC_SnDvl" said:


> Unless you can provide copies of the deals you are just as much of lie telling hack


Read their own statements. The deal with Dish has exclusives, yet they tried to claim it was Identical.


----------



## sdk009

Hoosier205 said:


> Which we all know is a lie. It's not the same deal. It was never the same deal. Wilner is a same hack who has been peddling PAC-12 propaganda from the start in his poorly written and formatted pieces.


I assume then you have access to the same information as Wilner, who writes for the Bay Area News Group which covers Walnut Creek, headquarter city of the PAC-12, and Bruce Jenkins who writes for the San Francisco Chronicle, headquarter city for the PAC-12 Net. Both of these writers have offered the pretty much the same information: that D* passed on the virtually the same deal that was accepted by the other carriers. That same information has been quoted over and over, but still denied by most D* apologists.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sdk009" said:


> I assume then you have access to the same information as Wilner, who writes for the Bay Area News Group which covers Walnut Creek, headquarter city of the PAC-12, and Bruce Jenkins who writes for the San Francisco Chronicle, headquarter city for the PAC-12 Net. Both of these writers have offered the pretty much the same information: that D* passed on the virtually the same deal that was accepted by the other carriers. That same information has been quoted over and over, but still denied by most D* apologists.


Same deal? That's what they claim, yet their own statement contradict that.


----------



## sum_random_dork

Hoosier205 said:


> Same deal? That's what they claim, yet their own statement contradict that.


From all I read (which you always claim to us is incorrect) the deals are/were the same minus one thing. Dish has exclusive in stadium advertising. If you watch Pac 12 games you'll notice Dish signs in the stadiums. Other than that, everything else has been the same deal. In my general area 3 providers haven't reached an agreement with Pac 12 networks: DirecTV, ATT, and Charter. Of that ATT really doesn't seem to matter as they have a small overall footprint in Nor Cal. Charter owns part of the Lake Tahoe market and all of the Reno/Sparks/Carson City area. Comcast, Suddenlink, Dish, Astound/Wave, and Frontier all have agreements in place, that's the vast majority of the Nor Cal market.

I saw a posting today from a larger sports bar that added Dish to their mix just for their Pac 12 fans (they operate 7 bars 24 hrs a day with 30+ TVs). They had been all DirecTV up until this switch. I am sure many of the Reno/Tahoe sports books also made a switch to add Dish to cover Pac 12 games.

As for your personal attacks on Jon Wilner as a "hack," I don't know many "hacks" writting for one of the largest newspapers in the country, having a vote in the AP poll and having a direct connection to a large Conf like the Pac 12. All writers have their sources, that is what makes a good writer........SEC, B1G, ACC etc all have writers they get info to when they want it out.


----------



## Hoosier205

So some folks are still claiming that something be both identical and different simultaneously.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> Which we all know is a lie. It's not the same deal. It was never the same deal. Wilner is a same hack who has been peddling PAC-12 propaganda from the start in his poorly written and formatted pieces.


We all know it is a lie and not the same deal?

Really now, so the Pac 12 is offering substantially different terms to Directv than everyone else? Really, and we all know this? Sounds like you are more of the propaganda arm for Directv more than anything else.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> We all know it is a lie and not the same deal?
> 
> Really now, so the Pac 12 is offering substantially different terms to Directv than everyone else? Really, and we all know this? Sounds like you are more of the propaganda arm for Directv more than anything else.


We know that the PAC-12 Network execs have claimed that the offers were nearly the same, identical, and different as various times. We also know that they cannot be all of those things at once. So what are we supposed to believe? Which of their multiple statements is the truth and which ones are the lies?


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> We know that the PAC-12 Network execs have claimed that the offers were nearly the same, identical, and different as various times. We also know that they cannot be all of those things at once. So what are we supposed to believe? Which of their multiple statements is the truth and which ones are the lies?


Huh? Pac 12 officials have claimed that the offers to all providers are substantially the same. When have they claimed one provider has a different deal than the other?

Most providers have a favored clause with any deal they do, meaning if there is a better deal offered to someone else then they get that deal.

Really when 4 of the top 5 providers are online and 8 of the top 10, you seriously think Pac 12 folks are lying? I cannot believe this for a minute. I do believe, however, that Directv officials have not been completely forthcoming. For months they told us to hang tight, then they said they'd have an update "closer to when school starts," then when school started they got up and walked away.

No way I buy Pac 12 officials doing something substantially different from provider to provider. Fact remains that Directv does not have it - and that's OK. They just should be honest and say "we do not intend to carry it" rather than all the bull$hit statements they issued that made it look like they wanted to carry it.


----------



## DC_SnDvl

+1



WebTraveler said:


> No way I buy Pac 12 officials doing something substantially different from provider to provider. Fact remains that Directv does not have it - and that's OK. They just should be honest and say "we do not intend to carry it" rather than all the bull$hit statements they issued that made it look like they wanted to carry it.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> Huh? Pac 12 officials have claimed that the offers to all providers are substantially the same. When have they claimed one provider has a different deal than the other?
> 
> Most providers have a favored clause with any deal they do, meaning if there is a better deal offered to someone else then they get that deal.
> 
> Really when 4 of the top 5 providers are online and 8 of the top 10, you seriously think Pac 12 folks are lying? I cannot believe this for a minute. I do believe, however, that Directv officials have not been completely forthcoming. For months they told us to hang tight, then they said they'd have an update "closer to when school starts," then when school started they got up and walked away.
> 
> No way I buy Pac 12 officials doing something substantially different from provider to provider. Fact remains that Directv does not have it - and that's OK. They just should be honest and say "we do not intend to carry it" rather than all the bull$hit statements they issued that made it look like they wanted to carry it.


They said the deals were the same. Then they said the deals were only nearly the same. Then we have the exclusive portions if the deal with Dish. Lies and half truths.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> They said the deals were the same. Then they said the deals were only nearly the same. Then we have the exclusive portions if the deal with Dish. Lies and half truths.


Oh, and Directv was so honest and forthcoming? Seriously? What is the real difference between substantially the same and the same to any lay person?

Directv back in June stated they didn't carry the channel and were not sure of their plans. By late July they stated that they wanted to carry the channel and then were in negotiations. By August they announced there would be an "update" closer to when school starts. Then school started at various Pac 12 schools and Directv kept saying when "school starts," then that turned into when the "season starts," then on the eve of the season starting Directv walked away completely and has filled the media waves of various contraduictory comments ever since.

Really, let's talk about who is being honest and forthcoming here. You really think that when 4 of the largest 5 and 8 of the largest 10 are on board that the deals are so different by providers? Yea, right, I don't believe that for a single moment.

What really exclusive portion with Dish? Oh the stadium advertisement? Well, there have been some small signs that say Dish in a few places. I honestly would have thought there would be a lot more push by the Pac 12 than those few signs. You are aware that deal was offered to Directv and they passed on it.

Your comment is way off base and simply there is no truth whatsoever. Simply put, if anyone is being disingenuous it's Directv. Now, it's OK if Directv does not want to carry the Pac 12. They can just be honest and say that up front.... "we do not intend to carry the Pac 12 network under terms offered to our competitors."


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> What is the real difference between substantially the same and the same to any lay person?


...you have to ask that? Okay...

The difference between the two statements is that one means that the terms are the same, while the other means that they are different.

What proof has there been that this network is even worth carrying?


----------



## sum_random_dork

Hoosier205 said:


> .
> 
> What proof has there been that this network is even worth carrying?


For me there has been many different games that have provided "proof" the channel is worth carrying. But you being in "Hoosier Country" may feel differently. There have been a few Cal games I wanted to see and if I am not mistaken the Cal Poly SLO upset of UCLA in basketball last night was also on Pac 12 networks. We didn't get to see "The Cival War" this weekend of OR/OR St which while a blowout win for OR still was a game I would like to have watched of 2 ranked teams.

So while you may not say that is proof, that's just what you think. Others of us do enjoy Pac 12 teams/games and would much rather watch that than being force fed B1G 10 games on ESPN/B1G 10 networks, or second rate SEC Games without much interst outside of the South.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sum_random_dork" said:


> For me there has been many different games that have provided "proof" the channel is worth carrying. But you being in "Hoosier Country" may feel differently. There have been a few Cal games I wanted to see and if I am not mistaken the Cal Poly SLO upset of UCLA in basketball last night was also on Pac 12 networks. We didn't get to see "The Cival War" this weekend of OR/OR St which while a blowout win for OR still was a game I would like to have watched of 2 ranked teams.
> 
> So while you may not say that is proof, that's just what you think. Others of us do enjoy Pac 12 teams/games and would much rather watch that than being force fed B1G 10 games on ESPN/B1G 10 networks, or second rate SEC Games without much interst outside of the South.


The most popular PAC-12 match-ups have been on other networks. You're talking about regional interest for a national channel. The pressure on DirecTV to add it just hasn't been there.


----------



## sum_random_dork

Hoosier205 said:


> ...you have to ask that? Okay...
> 
> The difference between the two statements is that one means that the terms are the same, while the other means that they are different.
> 
> What proof has there been that this network is even worth carrying?





Hoosier205 said:


> The most popular PAC-12 match-ups have been on other networks. You're talking about regional interest for a national channel. The pressure on DirecTV to add it just hasn't been there.


Again, you're stating what you feel is what everyone feels. No difference between that and B1G 10 network, in fact Pac 12 network gets better games than the B1G gets based on their TV contract. It's obvious what we say won't matter to you because you have made up your mind and will take DirecTV's side until the end. That's fine, but please stop putting everyone down that says facts and lays out why they want the channel. We are not in the wrong, we pay good $ to DirecTV and would like to see this channel. You can say that there is only a regional audience for the channel, but Pac 12 schools like USC, UCLA, Stanford all have large Nat'l audiences because their graduates end up all over the country. I would also bet that many people would much rather have watched the OR/OR St game on Saturday then some of the afternoon games we were offered on DirecTV.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sum_random_dork" said:


> Again, you're stating what you feel is what everyone feels. No difference between that and B1G 10 network, in fact Pac 12 network gets better games than the B1G gets based on their TV contract. It's obvious what we say won't matter to you because you have made up your mind and will take DirecTV's side until the end. That's fine, but please stop putting everyone down that says facts and lays out why they want the channel. We are not in the wrong, we pay good $ to DirecTV and would like to see this channel. You can say that there is only a regional audience for the channel, but Pac 12 schools like USC, UCLA, Stanford all have large Nat'l audiences because their graduates end up all over the country. I would also bet that many people would much rather have watched the OR/OR St game on Saturday then some of the afternoon games we were offered on DirecTV.


The biggest PAC-12 match-ups were on other networks. That isn't an opinion, those are the facts. Why are bringing up the BIG-10 Network? This discussion is about this new niche channel. BTW - the deal for the BIG-10 Network took a very long time to get done. A bad example if want them to add this one anytime soon...


----------



## sdk009

Hoosier205 said:


> The biggest PAC-12 match-ups were on other networks.
> ..


Fine, but now its basketball season and we're going to miss 13 basketball games this week because of D*'s obstinate stance not to listen to its subs. Five of the conference's teams received votes in this week's AP poll and for some of us who like college basketball more than college football, this is a big deal.


----------



## Hoosier205

"sdk009" said:


> Fine, but now its basketball season and we're going to miss 13 basketball games this week because of D*'s obstinate stance not to listen to its subs. Five of the conference's teams received votes in this week's AP poll and for some of us who like college basketball more than college football, this is a big deal.


Listen to its subs? If enough customers cared that much about it, they would leave and DirecTV might be compelled to ink a deal. They are a business making a business decision. It's one channel. It apparently doesn't carry enough weight to affect churn.


----------



## harsh

Hoosier205 said:


> Listen to its subs? If enough customers cared that much about it, they would leave and DirecTV might be compelled to ink a deal.


It was all the talk at my Thanksgiving dinner. Not having the Civil War and access to the Trailblazers is a major slight in the Portland market.

The tavern owners aren't liking having to subscribe to Comcast in addition to DIRECTV.


----------



## Hoosier205

"harsh" said:


> It was all the talk at my Thanksgiving dinner. Not having the Civil War and access to the Trailblazers is a major slight in the Portland market.
> 
> The tavern owners aren't liking having to subscribe to Comcast in addition to DIRECTV.


Talk is cheap. Unless enough customers speak with their wallets, it doesn't matter.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> ...you have to ask that? Okay...
> 
> The difference between the two statements is that one means that the terms are the same, while the other means that they are different.
> 
> What proof has there been that this network is even worth carrying?


You are just so wrong.

The deals are substantially the same to the providers for those customers in ordinary households. Where they are not the same is with commercial establishments because Directv has far more commercial establishments than anyone else.

Now since you are blown out of the water on the "substantially the same" issue you now retort to saying something dumb: "What proof has there been that this network is even worth carrying?"

Proof? So you are suggesting that every west coast customer including alumni, students, etc. not watch the Pac 12 because you deem it not important? It's very important to me and many others. There is the proof right there.

So Directv makes a business decision not to carry the channel? That is perfectly fine, so why have they been so evasive about it? Why not be straight shooters from day one and just say "we made a business decision not to carry it?" Instead you had Michael White a few weeks ago start whining out loud about all of it. It is perfectly OK to not carry the channel.

Plus when 4 of the largest 5 providers have it there is proof that there is demand for the channel. When 8 of the top 10 have it there is proof that there is demand for the channel.

You do not want the channel, I get that. That's fine. It was never been offered to you in the 1st place living in the midwest, so you never would have to pay for it. The deal is in market for those in the Pac 12 footprint and in the sports pack for those outside the footprint.

Now as a practical matter if there was no value WHY when I quit Directv did they offer: $20 off for a year, free NFL Sunday Ticket, free sports pack for a year, all of the pay channels free for 6 months, upgraded equipment for all TVs, etc. If something is of meager value why are they doing so much to prevent me from walking.

Because YOU don't think it is important is completely irrelevant to me and anyone else with an interest in the Pac 12. There are plenty of channels that I don't want or need, yet I have them.

Bottom line is that Pac 12 offers MORE sports at less overall cost than before. In the past we had some sports on various Fox or Comcast RSNs in the Pac 12 market, but very little. That's more access to not only football and basketball, but also other sports like volleyball, wrestling, soccer, swimming, baseball, etc. that rarely was shown on any RSN. Frankly, the Pac 12 has more sports on it than the Big 10 has on it's network.

I also feel like the costs of sports programming has escalated this will be the last college league to be able to successfully do a sports network. The timing was right and it happened and it is successful, despite what you say. So what Directv has passed, they've passed on other channels before and so what....a business decision was made....they could at least be honest about that business decision. That's what ethical people do. They respect customers and customers respect them. I was a long-time Directv customer who left in such disgust it's incredible.

And did I tell you that despite all the rhetoric of Directv, Dish is costing me less (even after all the discounts pass away)? That's pretty amazing to say the least.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> You are just so wrong.
> 
> The deals are substantially the same to the providers for those customers in ordinary households. Where they are not the same is with commercial establishments because Directv has far more commercial establishments than anyone else.
> 
> Now since you are blown out of the water on the "substantially the same" issue you now retort to saying something dumb: "What proof has there been that this network is even worth carrying?"
> 
> Proof? So you are suggesting that every west coast customer including alumni, students, etc. not watch the Pac 12 because you deem it not important? It's very important to me and many others. There is the proof right there.
> 
> So Directv makes a business decision not to carry the channel? That is perfectly fine, so why have they been so evasive about it? Why not be straight shooters from day one and just say "we made a business decision not to carry it?" Instead you had Michael White a few weeks ago start whining out loud about all of it. It is perfectly OK to not carry the channel.
> 
> Plus when 4 of the largest 5 providers have it there is proof that there is demand for the channel. When 8 of the top 10 have it there is proof that there is demand for the channel.
> 
> You do not want the channel, I get that. That's fine. It was never been offered to you in the 1st place living in the midwest, so you never would have to pay for it. The deal is in market for those in the Pac 12 footprint and in the sports pack for those outside the footprint.
> 
> Now as a practical matter if there was no value WHY when I quit Directv did they offer: $20 off for a year, free NFL Sunday Ticket, free sports pack for a year, all of the pay channels free for 6 months, upgraded equipment for all TVs, etc. If something is of meager value why are they doing so much to prevent me from walking.
> 
> Because YOU don't think it is important is completely irrelevant to me and anyone else with an interest in the Pac 12. There are plenty of channels that I don't want or need, yet I have them.
> 
> Bottom line is that Pac 12 offers MORE sports at less overall cost than before. In the past we had some sports on various Fox or Comcast RSNs in the Pac 12 market, but very little. That's more access to not only football and basketball, but also other sports like volleyball, wrestling, soccer, swimming, baseball, etc. that rarely was shown on any RSN. Frankly, the Pac 12 has more sports on it than the Big 10 has on it's network.
> 
> I also feel like the costs of sports programming has escalated this will be the last college league to be able to successfully do a sports network. The timing was right and it happened and it is successful, despite what you say. So what Directv has passed, they've passed on other channels before and so what....a business decision was made....they could at least be honest about that business decision. That's what ethical people do. They respect customers and customers respect them. I was a long-time Directv customer who left in such disgust it's incredible.
> 
> And did I tell you that despite all the rhetoric of Directv, Dish is costing me less (even after all the discounts pass away)? That's pretty amazing to say the least.


You could have saved us both time by admitting you have no proof. The "substantially the same" issue exists just as it did before. You haven't been able to provide a valid argument regarding that. They initially claimed they were the same. Later, they claimed they were merely "substantially the same." Something can not be both the same and different simultaneously.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> Talk is cheap. Unless enough customers speak with their wallets, it doesn't matter.


They have...4 of the 5 largest and 8 of the 10 largest providers all have it.

There is always one malcontent provider in the group and that one in this case is Directv. That's OK. If they were that comfortable in the decision Directv would have come out - and been honest in July and flat said, "we have made a business decision to carry the the channel." Instead, they flat lied and played games with the customer.

You will see a trickle out now since it's clear with basketball Directv is not coming on board, but by next summer you will see a good chunk leaving Directv. Maybe not enough to alter the decision, but that's OK.

But despite all of this Directv is not charging any less and they offer less (aside from NFL Sunday Ticket) than cable or Dish when comparing apples for apples on price and content. Now if you want NFL then yes you need Directv. That's a business decision they've made.

I look down the street and I know 6 of my fellow homeowners just in the immediate block that have cancelled Directv over this, so it's happening....some went w/Comcast others with Dish, but they left.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> You could have saved us both time by admitting you have no proof. The "substantially the same" issue exists just as it did before. You haven't been able to provide a valid argument regarding that. They initially claimed they were the same. Later, they claimed they were merely "substantially the same." Something can not be both the same and different simultaneously.


Really now...if there was a different deal on the table don't you think Directv would come out and say that? Seriously, get real.

How about this - you offer proof the deal is not the same? That Directv is being offered a worse deal than every other provider. Yea, in the end Directv is going to lose a LOT of customers over this....just wait....it's not over yet. They fooled many people during football season into staying put, offered them upgraded equipment to lock em in. In time it will all come down....you watch. Deception is the name of the game for Directv...

[as a practical matter nothing is exactly the same....Dish charges $8.99 for it's multi-sport, Directv $12.99; I think in my market Comcast wants $8 for it's slimmed down sports package You have some content differences in there; you have some base package differences between Directv, Dish, Comcast.) The commercial is where there is variance because Direct v has a much larger following.

Face it, you are just wrong.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> They have...4 of the 5 largest and 8 of the 10 largest providers all have it.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> That has absolutely nothing to do with customers speaking with their wallets. Customers did not agree to those deals. Providers did. There is no correlation. Given the fact that so many of the biggest PAC-12 games were on other networks, they need to work on improving their worth or reducing their demands if the wish to do business with the largest national provider in the country.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> How about this - you offer proof the deal is not the same?


 It is the PAC-12 Network whose statements about their offer(s) that has been contradictory, not mine. THEY claimed that the offer to DirecTV was the same, then later said it was not.



> Yea, in the end Directv is going to lose a LOT of customers over this....just wait....it's not over yet.


I will await your proof of that. It is one new, specialty, niche channel that cannot even keep their most prominent conference games on their own network. They are not ESPN. It is silly to believe that this channel will make a noticeable dent in a 20+ million customer roster. Little to no churn...


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> It is the PAC-12 Network whose statements about their offer(s) that has been contradictory, not mine. THEY claimed that the offer to DirecTV was the same, then later said it was not.
> 
> I will await your proof of that. It is one new, specialty, niche channel that cannot even keep their most prominent conference games on their own network. They are not ESPN. It is silly to believe that this channel will make a noticeable dent in a 20+ million customer roster. Little to no churn...


Show me where the Pac 12 is contradictory.....

Providers would not have the network if customers did not want it. It's silly to think otherwise.

No one ever claimed the network is ESPN so I have no idea why that is relevant. 7 channels is .80 per sub versus $5 or so for ESPN....completely different markets altogether. Pac 12 shows things ESPN won't or can't. They are not competitors, they compliment each other, so you will never see the #1 game of the week on the network.

The network is already a success and we're not even through football season yet. Basketball is here and we can get sports like volleyball and gymnastics we never could get before. It provides more access than ever before.

Frankly, I think you are jealous about how much of a success this network already. There is always a malcontent trying to pour sour milk on everything. You are simply that guy. Really - why would it be your concern to continually bad mouth a channel you do not want? Why go on and on?

Bottom line is that even without Directv the network is doing just fine.....and yes, mark my words, before next football season, unless Directv gives in (and either carries the network OR drops their fees so dramatically) there will be a significant loss on the west coast. Maybe not nationwide, but on the west coast - absolutely. Now whether that means Directv changes course is anyone's guess. They may make a business decision to still not carry it. That's a choice they will make.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> Show me where the Pac 12 is contradictory.....


...they said the deal they offered was both the same and different.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> ...they said the deal they offered was both the same and different.


Yesterday I said "Today is Monday." Later today I'll say "Today is Tuesday." Will I be a liar because what I say is updated to remain accurate?

PAC-12's statements were accurate at the time they were said. It does not take a giant leap to understand that offering two carriers the same offer is completely possible ... and if one carrier accepts something exclusive it _changes_ the offer for the second carrier. Or the offer could be the same for both carriers and one carrier could want more (or less) in the deal than offered. Regardless, in both instances it REMAINS TRUE that PAC-12 could say they _made_ (a past tense word) the same offer to both carriers.

I know you want to point out the differences ... but any differences you may find come from DirecTV not accepting the offer. Which is not a bad thing ... they NEED to come up with the best deal they can for their business and their customers, just like the other top carriers have come up with the best deal that they could get for their business and customers. Sometimes that takes time.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> PAC-12's statements were accurate at the time they were said.


Proof? Source?


----------



## James Long

See previous thread.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> See previous thread.


See previous question.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> ...they said the deal they offered was both the same and different.


*Shall I ask again? Show me where this was said. Seriously, if you KNOW this was said, then show it. *

Secondly, if we are playing on words, take the Directv statements that have been across the board

In June - no plans to carry it
In July - we are in negotiations and want to carry the channel
In early August - "we'll have an update closer to when school starts...but we want to carry this channel"
In late August when school has started at several Pac 12 universities - "we'll have an update closer to when school starts" ("But school has started...?" "Sir that is all the information we have")
Then a few days later its "we'll have an update closer to when the season starts"
Eve of season starts. Directv stops discussions and goes home.

So who is changing the tune? Again, if Directv never had any intention of carrying the Pac 12 Network then that is OK! Just be honest about it!

Pac 12 is not lying and as a practical matter the early signers probably did get a marginally better deal because they signed on last May! Directv gave Pac 12 the finger in May of 2011.

Dish gets a better deal than Directv because Dish signed on and gets to hang some signs?? That's a better deal? Directv could have had this deal, but passed. I was really thinking there would be a harder push in the stadiums, etc. for Dish signups, frankly, its been very light and almost non-existent, except for a sign. That's no different than Pepsi or Coke....Carls Jr or McDonalds, etc.

Whatever deal Dish got Directv could have received and probably better. The ONE place where Pac 12 where Pac 12 can wheel and deal is the commercial establishments since Dish and the cable companies have limited offerings in these areas. But Directv passed.

Fact remains that (100% owned) ROOT Sports Northwest charges upwards of $3.30 plus (probably more) and had limited Pac 12 coverage...now for .80 I get the whole conference, 7 channels....Bottom line is that if Directv is worried about costs, getting it straight from Pac 12 at .80 is a MUCH better deal for the whole thing....but it destroys Directv's content in Root NW. What are they showing now? They lost 4 universities content and show high school football.....all for $3.30 plus per month. What a deal.

Simply put, you are jealous that Pac 12 hired a sports marketing genius in Mr. Scott.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> Shall I ask again? Show me where this was said. Seriously, if you KNOW this was said, then show it.


http://dailyemerald.com/2012/10/05/...kely-to-reach-agreement-this-football-season/



> "It's a little bit bizarre that the Big-10 Network is available on DirecTV right here in the heart of Pac-12 country," said Craig Pintens, athletic director for marketing and public relations. *"It's baffling to us that a company committed to sports programming hasn't accepted the Pac-12′s offer because it's the same deal that's been accepted by DISH and four of the nation's largest cable companies.*"


http://arizona.sbnation.com/2012/9/19/3359710/pac-12-network-directv-letter



> "We find DirecTV's position baffling. First, the deal we've offered DirecTV is fundamentally similar to the deal that has already been accepted by DISH, four of the largest cable companies in the country and more than 40 others."





"WebTraveler" said:


> Simply put, you are jealous that Pac 12 hired a sports marketing genius in Mr. Scott.


Why in the world would I be jealous? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please explain what reason I would have to be jealous that they hired Scott.

Every single DirecTV customer, regardless of their geographic location, has a reason to take an interest in this issue. We will all pay for it, whether by the loss of available capacity or through the cost of carrying it - depending upon where it is placed.

Larry Scott had two offers and he turned down both. If he doesn't want to tap into the 20+ million customers DirecTV has as the country's largest national provider, that's up to him. He either needs to come back with an offer that reflects his network's worth or agree to let it stand alone. If he was as confident in his product as you are, he would do that.


----------



## WebTraveler

Where do these articles say the deal was different? They don't mention it at all as far as I can tell. I don't know what "fundamentally" means, but it could be so simple as the base package difference between the two providers.

Finally, how are all the other providers able to make this work? Directv charges the same or more than most other providers*...so you are suggesting that it is OK to charge more for less? *Because this is what you are arguing for - in backwards terms - of course.

Could it be that Directv charges more because it's got to cover the cost of it's NFL Sunday Ticket package?



Hoosier205 said:


> http://dailyemerald.com/2012/10/05/...kely-to-reach-agreement-this-football-season/
> 
> http://arizona.sbnation.com/2012/9/19/3359710/pac-12-network-directv-letter
> 
> Why in the world would I be jealous? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please explain what reason I would have to be jealous that they hired Scott.
> 
> Every single DirecTV customer, regardless of their geographic location, has a reason to take an interest in this issue. We will all pay for it, whether by the loss of available capacity or through the cost of carrying it - depending upon where it is placed.
> 
> Larry Scott had two offers and he turned down both. If he doesn't want to tap into the 20+ million customers DirecTV has as the country's largest national provider, that's up to him. He either needs to come back with an offer that reflects his network's worth or agree to let it stand alone. If he was as confident in his product as you are, he would do that.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> Where do these articles say the deal was different? They don't mention it at all as far as I can tell. I don't know what "fundamentally" means, but it could be so simple as the base package difference between the two providers.
> 
> Finally, how are all the other providers able to make this work? Directv charges the same or more than most other providers...so you are suggesting that it is OK to charge more for less? Because this is what you are arguing for - in backwards terms - of course.
> 
> Could it be that Directv charges more because it's got to cover the cost of it's NFL Sunday Ticket package?


Same =/= fundamentally the same


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> Same =/= fundamentally the same


You are hung up on this word? Seriously. For all practical purposes this is the same deal offered. Where does it differ? Probably in three areas: (1) the fact that Directv and Dish have different base packages, (2) the deal for commercial establishments since Directv is the leader here, and (3) sports pack on Directv and Multi-sport in Dish have a little different makeup.

You have nothing more than your personal opinion that there is a compelling difference between the two. Hardly worth splitting hairs over.


----------



## Laxguy

I see it as similar to being "a little bit pregnant". 

"Substantially the same" or "Fundamentally the same" is also a judgment call- tiny in some eyes, huge in others'. It positively is not the same as "the same".


----------



## WebTraveler

Laxguy said:


> I see it as similar to being "a little bit pregnant".
> 
> "Substantially the same" or "Fundamentally the same" is also a judgment call- tiny in some eyes, huge in others'. It positively is not the same as "the same".


Perhaps, but he doesn't even know what is different and is ready to start WWIII over it! For all we know it was simple a choice of wording when said......we don't even know there is a difference!


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> Perhaps, but he doesn't even know what is different and is ready to start WWIII over it! For all we know it was simple a choice of wording when said......we don't even know there is a difference!


We know they were lying. That is the point.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> We know they were lying. That is the point.


WE know? Who is WE? You think they are lying, but you have no proof of it, other than "fundamentally" in one sentence.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> WE know? Who is WE? You think they are lying, but you have no proof of it, other than "fundamentally" in one sentence.


They claimed the deals were the same, when they were not.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> They claimed the deals were the same, when they were not.


Just a play on words.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I doubt the agreement details for the same content would be exactly the same between providers. 

Of course the proposals are not exactly the same and IMHO it makes absolutely no sense to think they would be.

We can all agree that the proposed deals are not identical. That’s just common sense. Unless someone has something other than quotes in an interview as “proof”, I suggest we move on with the discussion and let this go for now. Let's not keep rehashing the subject.

:backtotop 

Mike


----------



## Bambler

Regardless of what ultimately happens, I'm actually looking forward to the day that every conference creates a network just so we can watch the fallout.


----------



## Carl Spock

Any love here for Stanford in winning the PAC-12 championship in an exciting game against UCLA?

Go Cardinal!


----------



## Laxguy

A fine game! First time back to back meetings of two good FB teams, so I got to watch all the Pac12 football games I wanted to, and yesterday's was the best. 

Congrats to The Farm!!


----------



## David Ortiz

Carl Spock said:


> Any love here for Stanford in winning the PAC-12 championship in an exciting game against UCLA?
> 
> Go Cardinal!





Laxguy said:


> A fine game! First time back to back meetings of two good FB teams, so I got to watch all the Pac12 football games I wanted to, and yesterday's was the best.
> 
> Congrats to The Farm!!


Boy it would have sucked to lose that one. Stanford Pac-12 Champs!!!!


----------



## Mariah2014

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/jenkins/article/Pac-12-whiffs-on-television-deal-4082632.php


> Scott spent the season lamenting DirecTV's blase attitude during the negotiations (which apparently stopped cold about a month ago), and he's undoubtedly correct. But there has to be a stage in which public demand carries the day. Drop the tug-of-war and get it right.


----------



## Hoosier205

A fair assessment of Larry Scott:



> For all the refreshing intrigue that surrounded the Pac-12 Conference football season, Commissioner Larry Scott has to acknowledge one thing: From a television standpoint, it was a dismal failure.


Instead of getting a deal done, he wasted time insulting DirecTV.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Carl Spock said:


> Any love here for Stanford in winning the PAC-12 championship in an exciting game against UCLA?
> 
> Go Cardinal!


All Right Now, baby, It's All Right Now.

The Cardinal should be playing for a national championship, and ND has no business being in the top 10.

Kevin Hogan, 4-0 as starter, and a freshman.

In a rematch, Stanford would beat ND by at least 3 touchdowns.

And it would beat Alabama by 1.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> A fair assessment of Larry Scott:
> 
> Quote:
> For all the refreshing intrigue that surrounded the Pac-12 Conference football season, Commissioner Larry Scott has to acknowledge one thing: From a television standpoint, it was a dismal failure.
> 
> Instead of getting a deal done, he wasted time insulting DirecTV.


I disagree. This column is from a guy who doesn't even cover the college game. He's no more informed than a clown.

Bay Area already has the Top Pac 12 guru in Jon Wilner. You can read Mr. Wilner columns and blogs, knowing full well he does his homework and knows the Pac 12 better than anyone else OR you can read this garbage from a guy who doesn't even know the college game. I guess if you want the uninformed route take Mr. Jenkin's blog. It's certainly not gospel or informative.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> I disagree. This column is from a guy who doesn't even cover the college game. He's no more informed than a clown.
> 
> Bay Area already has the Top Pac 12 guru in Jon Wilner. You can read Mr. Wilner columns and blogs, knowing full well he does his homework and knows the Pac 12 better than anyone else OR you can read this garbage from a guy who doesn't even know the college game. I guess if you want the uninformed route take Mr. Jenkin's blog. It's certainly not gospel or informative.


I have read Wilner's poorly written and formatted work. It is of very poor quality:


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> I have read Wilner's poorly written and formatted work. It is of very poor quality:


To each their own. At least Mr. Wilner covers the college game and actually talks to the Pac 12 folks, finds facts, confirms facts, and investigates his sources to make sure the facts are accurate.

This Jenkins guy has not even written one college column this year. That's telling.


----------



## donm

Hoosier205 said:


> I have read Wilner's poorly written and formatted work. It is of very poor quality:


I'm not a big fan of Wilner but if your trying to say this hack is a better writer and more informed it is no wonder you stick up blindly for Directv.


----------



## maartena

kick4fun said:


> BTW, I'm not jumping ship yet, but I do keep thinking about it.. I wonder how much longer it takes me to finally persuade the family to take a different direction.


From what I read in the media.... the deal is SO far off, and they are SO much at disagreement.... it doesn't become a question of "how long before a deal is reached", but a "how long can i go on without PAC12 before I switch".

With football season PRACTICALLY over, (all remaining games are playoffs and on national channels), there really is no reason to do anything about PAC12 until next season. Basketball may simply not have enough pull for DirecTV.


----------



## kick4fun

maartena said:


> From what I read in the media.... the deal is SO far off, and they are SO much at disagreement.... it doesn't become a question of "how long before a deal is reached", but a "how long can i go on without PAC12 before I switch".
> 
> With football season PRACTICALLY over, (all remaining games are playoffs and on national channels), there really is no reason to do anything about PAC12 until next season. Basketball may simply not have enough pull for DirecTV.


What?? I wrote that months ago before I switched... I am very happy with Dish now and happily got to watch 5-6 games of Cougar Football on the Pac12 Networks and now tons of Basketball..

Why are you quoting something I wrote back in September?


----------



## kick4fun

donm said:


> I'm not a big fan of Wilner but if your trying to say this hack is a better writer and more informed it is no wonder you stick up blindly for Directv.


Agreed 100%


----------



## Mariah2014

It doesn't bother me. I have the channel and if Directv comes to a deal in August or September of next year then I would gladly pay the early cancellation fee to Dish network. In the meantime I get the benfit of the station either way. Just like when Directv dropped versus, I didn't lose the channel I added cable for the exact length it was out. Only this time I missed some games because the channel wasn't available on any carrier in this area before dish network added it. 


maartena said:


> From what I read in the media.... the deal is SO far off, and they are SO much at disagreement.... it doesn't become a question of "how long before a deal is reached", but a "how long can i go on without PAC12 before I switch".
> 
> With football season PRACTICALLY over, (all remaining games are playoffs and on national channels), there really is no reason to do anything about PAC12 until next season. Basketball may simply not have enough pull for DirecTV.


----------



## donm

I have also already switched to Dish from Directv and glad I did. I'm happy with Dish and love the Pac 12 Network. I also know of at least 3 people that will be switching to Dish if Directv doesn't get the Pac 12 Network before the start of football next year. I just talked to one person and they won't even wait until the season starts. 

I'm also happy that I will be able to see almost all the Ducks men's basketball games this year.


----------



## WebTraveler

donm said:


> I have also already switched to Dish from Directv and glad I did. I'm happy with Dish and love the Pac 12 Network. I also know of at least 3 people that will be switching to Dish if Directv doesn't get the Pac 12 Network before the start of football next year. I just talked to one person and they won't even wait until the season starts.
> 
> I'm also happy that I will be able to see almost all the Ducks men's basketball games this year.


I converted too and Dish is fine, I can find nothing substantially different other than Dish has ESPNU in SD only, but you can get the Pac 12 Network. I am sure someone somewhere can find a significant difference in something, but for most practical users, I cannot find a major difference....plus with all of that my package total cost is less even when the discounts expire. Now hopefully the status quo will continue because I left Dish almost five years ago because they pulled my ABC station off for 8 months. Hopefully that won't continue....


----------



## reason43

I'm wondering if there are a significant number of subs with Sunday Ticket who will switch after the NFL season winds down so they can catch the PAC-12 in-conference basketball season starting in January. I don't care about ST but I will miss a lot of basketball games if I don't pull the trigger and switch after the first of the year. Also, I believe that the mix channels for the golf and tennis majors are on D* but not Dish. I do enjoy those.


----------



## kick4fun

donm said:


> I have also already switched to Dish from Directv and glad I did. I'm happy with Dish and love the Pac 12 Network. I also know of at least 3 people that will be switching to Dish if Directv doesn't get the Pac 12 Network before the start of football next year. I just talked to one person and they won't even wait until the season starts.
> 
> I'm also happy that I will be able to see almost all the Ducks men's basketball games this year.


Speaking of which, are you happy with the Hopper? I am and think the switch was a great decision..


----------



## kick4fun

reason43 said:


> I'm wondering if there are a significant number of subs with Sunday Ticket who will switch after the NFL season winds down so they can catch the PAC-12 in-conference basketball season starting in January. I don't care about ST but I will miss a lot of basketball games if I don't pull the trigger and switch after the first of the year. Also, I believe that the mix channels for the golf and tennis majors are on D* but not Dish. I do enjoy those.


I've already seen a handful of BB games on Pac12 and there are many more scheduled for the month of December.. The cool thing about Dish, is the Redzone.. I feel I get all the best of the games in little snippets.. Don't really miss ST and have saved a ton of money.. But this isn't about whether Dish or Directv is better, but at least with DISH we have Pac12 Networks.. Despite a couple of people who claim otherwise, the visible difference between the two is ZERO.. I can't tell and I am picky about my HD..

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Sandra

Really disappointed I cannot watch the Southern Miss-Arizona basketball game on the Pac-12 Network tonight....very interesting game.


Sandra


----------



## donm

kick4fun said:


> Speaking of which, are you happy with the Hopper? I am and think the switch was a great decision..


Yes, I love the hopper. They only little problem I have is on Sunday nights. I have all my shows that I like running between 6:00-9:00PM on Sunday night which has had my wife an daughter a little upset they can't record much if at all. It will be fine starting this weekend though with TWD on mid-season break. I even thought about getting a second hopper but normally I wouldn't need it. I just wish the shows I want to record would be spread out a little.

I like TWD, Dexter, Homeland, Talking Dead, Comic book men all showing on Sunday night.


----------



## WebTraveler

kick4fun said:


> Speaking of which, are you happy with the Hopper? I am and think the switch was a great decision..


The Hopper is awesome.

I do wish that on the internet apps for the Hopper they'd make seperate Apps for all of the Pac 12 channels so we can watch the channels we don't get by streaming it through the internet.


----------



## WebTraveler

Sandra said:


> Really disappointed I cannot watch the Southern Miss-Arizona basketball game on the Pac-12 Network tonight....very interesting game.
> 
> Sandra


common over to Dish. Join the group of us that left Directv because of this.


----------



## Laxguy

WebTraveler said:


> common over to Dish. Join the group of us that left Directv because of this.


Yeah, all 35 of you!


----------



## kick4fun

Laxguy;3141153 said:


> Yeah, all 35 of you!


Face in palm..


----------



## WebTraveler

Laxguy said:


> Yeah, all 35 of you!


There is a LOT more than that. Laugh all you want by paying MORE for LESS over at Directv.

Even after all the promos expire I am paying about $10 less per month for my programming - and the way the packages are structured at Dish, realistically for the channels I watch I can save even more.

Money talks, bull**** walks. Whine all you want, I just laugh.


----------



## kick4fun

WebTraveler;3141265 said:


> There is a LOT more than that. Laugh all you want by paying MORE for LESS over at Directv.
> 
> Even after all the promos expire I am paying about $10 less per month for my programming - and the way the packages are structured at Dish, realistically for the channels I watch I can save even more.
> 
> Money talks, bull**** walks. Whine all you want, I just laugh.


Haha.. I couldn't have said it better..


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> There is a LOT more than that.


 Prove it.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> Prove it.


Oh brother.. Aren't you done with this back and forth.. Great, we all know you love Directv.. We have Pac12 Networks.. Conversation is over..


----------



## Sandra

WebTraveler said:


> common over to Dish. Join the group of us that left Directv because of this.


Cannot leave DirecTV over the Pac 12 Networks. There are simply WAAAAY too many sports channels and packages on DirecTV that I would lose if I switched to Dish.

Sandra


----------



## Land's End

I switched to Dish 8 days ago mainly because I was disappointed in ongoing lack of Pac-12 Network. I am enjoying the chage, especially HD and the lower monthly bill. The one thing I REALLY miss is the up to date sports scores that were easy to find over at "D". I hope Dish will add something like that in the near future. Thanks to eveyrone here for keeping us apprised of this Pac-12 situation.


----------



## kick4fun

Land's End;3141650 said:


> I switched to Dish 8 days ago mainly because I was disappointed in ongoing lack of Pac-12 Network. I am enjoying the chage, especially HD and the lower monthly bill. The one thing I REALLY miss is the up to date sports scores that were easy to find over at "D". I hope Dish will add something like that in the near future. Thanks to eveyrone here for keeping us apprised of this Pac-12 situation.


Easily done by pressing blue button for Dish Game finder..


----------



## Land's End

Thanks, kicks4fun, but I've spent 15 minutes on my 722k remote and can't get to the right screen. What am I doing wrong?


----------



## James Long

Land's End;3141752 said:


> Thanks, kicks4fun, but I've spent 15 minutes on my 722k remote and can't get to the right screen. What am I doing wrong?


The Blue Button is on the Hopper remote control.

Also available online here: http://www.mydish.com/gamefinder/


----------



## kick4fun

Land's End;3141752 said:


> Thanks, kicks4fun, but I've spent 15 minutes on my 722k remote and can't get to the right screen. What am I doing wrong?


Sorry.. I assumed you had the hopper, being a new customer and all.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> Prove it.


Aside from NFL package and a few RSNs there is little substantive difference between the two and fact remains that Dish costs less. Those facts are just not disputable. So unless you live in an area where Directv has the RSN you need OR you want NFL, the comparison is simple - they are substantially the same on programmimg options.

Dish's DVR technology is slightly better.

Cost is clearly less.

Getting into a circular discussion with you is petty. It's your right to believe what you want, but facts rule.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> Aside from NFL package and a few RSNs there is little substantive difference between the two and fact remains that Dish costs less. Those facts are just not disputable. So unless you live in an area where Directv has the RSN you need OR you want NFL, the comparison is simple - they are substantially the same on programmimg options.
> 
> Dish's DVR technology is slightly better.
> 
> Cost is clearly less.
> 
> Getting into a circular discussion with you is petty. It's your right to believe what you want, but facts rule.


You said there were a lot more than that in response to someone saying 35 people had left. I asked for proof.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> You said there were a lot more than that in response to someone saying 35 people had left. I asked for proof.


Why do you need the proof? Considering you already know at least a handful of people from DBS who have switched, also many other blogs and websites have shown people have left, do you really think it's less than "35" people? Why are you hung up on 35 people..

Was the number enough to make Directv change their position, obviously not, but it clearly is more than 35 people..

I don't know of anyone who has officially taken a poll, but maybe since you have a lot of free time it might be a fun project for you if you were interested in seeing the proof through numbers..
Let us know what you find out..


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> Why do you need the proof? Considering you already know at least a handful of people from DBS who have switched, also many other blogs and websites have shown people have left, do you really think it's less than "35" people? Why are you hung up on 35 people..
> 
> Was the number enough to make Directv change their position, obviously not, but it clearly is more than 35 people..
> 
> I don't know of anyone who has officially taken a poll, but maybe since you have a lot of free time it might be a fun project for you if you were interested in seeing the proof through numbers..
> Let us know what you find out..


I didn't make the claim.


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> Then why not help us all out, prove that its not 35 or more...


...because I am not the one who made the claim that it was more than that. Very simple.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> You said there were a lot more than that in response to someone saying 35 people had left. I asked for proof.


I don't really care about what you asked for. Common sense tells us it's more than 35. You can accept that or not. That's just you hung up on the facts. I personally know 9 people besides myself and add in the people here in the forums doing the same thing its clear more than 35 is obvious.

But stick to the facts - aside from NFL Sunday Ticket and a few RSN markets, Directv has programming packages not substantially different from Dish Network.

Dish Network's equipment is a little better, but lets just call that equal for the sake of your silly argument.

At the end of the day my bill is at least $10 less per month...and with differences in packages for what I watch it is clear I can easily drop to a lower tier package and save even more if I choose to.

And on top of it all, I get Pac 12 Network.

Stick to the facts and the arguments are obvious. If you go with Directv (and you do not want Sunday Ticket OR live in one of the few areas covered by a RSN Dish does not have versus Directv) then clearly you are overpaying by staying with Directv versus Dish. Simple as that. Go ahead and get yourself all bent out of shape on proving more than 35 people left Directv over not having Pac 12; it doesn't matter what you think...it's happening.


----------



## Hoosier205

"WebTraveler" said:


> I don't really care about what you asked for. Common sense tells us it's more than 35. You can accept that or not. That's just you hung up on the facts. I personally know 9 people besides myself and add in the people here in the forums doing the same thing its clear more than 35 is obvious.


So, you don't have any. Got it. You could have said it was a baseless assumption from the beginning and saved yourself some time. Let me know when enough people leave that it actually matters. With 20+ million customers...good luck. Enjoy your HD lite, fewer HD channels, and constant/lengthy retrans disputes. Dish Network has been scrounging for the leftovers for 16 years and that shows no signs of changing. I simply prefer the premier provider over the cheap knock off.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> So, you don't have any. Got it. You could have said it was a baseless assumption from the beginning and saved yourself some time. Let me know when enough people leave that it actually matters. With 20+ million customers...good luck. Enjoy your HD lite, fewer HD channels, and constant/lengthy retrans disputes. Dish Network has been scrounging for the leftovers for 16 years and that shows no signs of changing. I simply prefer the premier provider over the cheap knock off.


And what does this have to do with Pac12 Networks?


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> And what does this have to do with Pac12 Networks?


You must not have actually read the post.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> Enjoy your HD lite, fewer HD channels, and constant/lengthy retrans disputes. Dish Network has been scrounging for the leftovers for 16 years and that shows no signs of changing. I simply prefer the premier provider over the cheap knock off.


^^^^^^^^ what does this have to do with the Pac12?


----------



## Hoosier205

"kick4fun" said:


> AGAIN, what does this have to do with the Pac12?


....



"Hoosier205" said:


> So, you don't have any. Got it. You could have said it was a baseless assumption from the beginning and saved yourself some time. Let me know when enough people leave that it actually matters. With 20+ million customers...good luck. Enjoy your HD lite, fewer HD channels, and constant/lengthy retrans disputes. Dish Network has been scrounging for the leftovers for 16 years and that shows no signs of changing. I simply prefer the premier provider over the cheap knock off.


----------



## kick4fun

Hoosier205 said:


> ....


Please explain to me what HD light, carriage disputes etc have to do with Pac12 Networks... You're not answering the question... Despite your plea for proof of subscriber attrition, the rant about superiority does nothing to help the thread in a civil discourse about PAC12 networks..


----------



## sdk009

Dennis Dobbs (National college football writer for CBSSports.com) tweets:
"Where do you stand with DIRECTV P12N asked. I'm told DIRECTV wasn't going to do a deal with Dish signage at all the P12 venues." 
And another tweet by Bryan Fischer (Senior correspondent for Pac-12 Digital):
"PAC12 Network deal with DIRECTV could be next week...or a few years away.- (PAC 12 Net GM) Lydia Murphy-Stevens." 
It appears that D* hasn't been real honest as to their REAL objection to carrying the PAC-12 Net. I wouldn't hold my breath that there will ever be a deal. And the sad thing is that it could have been D* signage at all the venues.


----------



## RasputinAXP

kick4fun said:


> Please explain to me what HD light, carriage disputes etc have to do with Pac12 Networks... You're not answering the question... Despite your plea for proof of subscriber attrition, the rant about superiority does nothing to help the thread in a civil discourse about PAC12 networks..


It's what he always says about Dish. Just ignore him.


----------



## Hoosier205

"RasputinAXP" said:


> It's what he always says about Dish. Just ignore him.


It continues to be correct as Dish is a second tier service.


----------



## Mariah2014

So if Dish was the only company to carry the stations you wanted, then what? For us it happens to be the pac 12 network. Although I have both services.


Hoosier205 said:


> It continues to be correct as Dish is a second tier service.


----------



## MikeW

Hoosier205 said:


> It continues to be correct as Dish is a second tier service.


Not sure why you are always allowed to litter these threads without some moderation. This is about Pac-12, not who is the better service provider. Since you pronounce yourself as a Hoosier fan, you most likely are not upset at all for the lack of the Pac 12 because the Big 10 is right there on 610.

So, how about giving some sympathy for people who are missing some of their favorite teams instead of pounding away at the same points that you litter most every thread with.

We missed several UofA football games this season. How many Hoosier games did you not have available?


----------



## RasputinAXP

Hoosier205 said:


> It continues to be correct as Dish is a second tier service.


By your extreme, minority definition. I mean, really. For the less than 1% who somehow notice your so-called "HD-Lite", possibly. Or you've ninja-tin-foil-hatted yourself into believing there's a significant difference, which is always a possibility...but the prudent route is to stop trolling people. There's no "winner" based on what satellite service you subscribe to. None.


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> So, you don't have any. Got it. You could have said it was a baseless assumption from the beginning and saved yourself some time. Let me know when enough people leave that it actually matters. With 20+ million customers...good luck. Enjoy your HD lite, fewer HD channels, and constant/lengthy retrans disputes. Dish Network has been scrounging for the leftovers for 16 years and that shows no signs of changing. I simply prefer the premier provider over the cheap knock off.


Oh really, somehow you have latched onto that there is no way that even 35 people could have switched to Dish Network because of the Pac 12 Network. Seriously, I personally know nine people besides myself, not to mention all of the folks here, which is far greater than 35.

My installer back in early October said he was working mandatory overtime every day to cover new installs, they had the same staff size for several years and have not added, but the orders keep coming in. Said they were working 6 12 hr days a week. Good money he said, but it was tiring. Most were interested in the Hopper and secondarily Pac 12 Network.

"HD lite?" I've heard both providers offer many channels in a compressed format. I do not know, but frankly I have no observed any difference.

"Constant/Retrans Disputes?" Are there some? Yes, but constant, not at all. Read the news - it's Directv that seems to have having the most trouble right now.

Fewer HD? Maybe, but for what most of us watch it's hardly less. I am not even sure that this is true anyway, but if it is, then so what if I don't watch those channels? Some things matter in life and beyond ESPU I cannot find anything that I watch not in HD.

We can go on and on, but for 98% of folks Dish does just fine...again, have fun paying more for less!


----------



## WebTraveler

Hoosier205 said:


> It continues to be correct as Dish is a second tier service.


.PROVE It!


----------



## James Long

Hey guys ... let's stick with PAC-12 discussion here. DirecTV vs DISH will not be solved in this thread.

<<< Consider this the line >>>

:backtotop


----------



## Sandra

MikeW said:


> We missed several UofA football games this season. How many Hoosier games did you not have available?


Well, considering the sad state of Hoosier football, hopefully for his sake most of their games were NOT available this year! 

Sandra


----------



## shaun007miller

As much as I want the Pac-12 Network, I'm simply unable to give up my NFL ST because one game was exclusive. I'm a Duck fan, but to switch for one game just didn't make any sense for me. Anyway, are there any updates as to why the deal is not done? Other than the official nonsense that Scott and DTV have released. Plus, I just don't see why DTV would even worry about carrying the channel until next season, with the Pac 12 not being a strong basketball conference.


----------



## kick4fun

shaun007miller said:


> with the Pac 12 not being a strong basketball conference.


Isn't that sad?? What happened?? The Mountain West BB is stronger than the Pac12. Oh well...


----------



## sdk009

shaun007miller said:


> As much as I want the Pac-12 Network, I'm simply unable to give up my NFL ST because one game was exclusive. I'm a Duck fan, but to switch for one game just didn't make any sense for me. Anyway, are there any updates as to why the deal is not done? Other than the official nonsense that Scott and DTV have released. Plus, I just don't see why DTV would even worry about carrying the channel until next season, with the Pac 12 not being a strong basketball conference.


As I wrote Thursday:
Dennis Dobbs (National college football writer for CBSSports.com) tweets:
"Where do you stand with DIRECTV P12N asked. I'm told DIRECTV wasn't going to do a deal with Dish signage at all the P12 venues." 
And another tweet by Bryan Fischer (Senior correspondent for Pac-12 Digital):
"PAC12 Network deal with DIRECTV could be next week...or a few years away.- (PAC 12 Net GM) Lydia Murphy-Stevens." 
It appears that D* hasn't been real honest as to their REAL objection to carrying the PAC-12 Net. I wouldn't hold my breath that there will ever be a deal. And the sad thing is that it could have been D* signage at all the venues.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

TV technical union strikes against Pac-12 Networks


----------



## Laxguy

If it was tweeted, it must be true. 

Give me a break! You really think it's due to signage in some arenas? If so, precious little pro sports would be televised if that were the attitude of broadcasters and/or carriers.


----------



## markrogo

I will probably vote partly with my wallet this spring and cancel MLB EI for mlb.tv and when they ask why say, "You don't carry the Pac-12 Network, so I'm cutting back on spending with you until such time as I cut back all my spending with you." The latter half is in the TBD category, but in the meantime, I can trim programming a few times to make the point as we take services above and beyond the basic package and I can deliver that message several times.


----------



## kick4fun

Mike Leach is cleared.. Just as I thought.. http://www.cougcenter.com/2012/12/12/3760704/marquess-wilson-abuse-investigation-findings-mike-leach

also, http://www.cougcenter.com/wsu-couga...wilson-abuse-investigation-results-mike-leach

http://washingtonstate.scout.com/2/1248813.html


----------



## heepfan

Well Pac12 bball starts today and nothing from DirecTV. Just waiting for my contract to expire so I can jump. CSR says they are closer than they have been but I doubt that. #nottheleaderinsports


----------



## FenixTX

"heepfan" said:


> Well Pac12 bball starts today and nothing from DirecTV. Just waiting for my contract to expire so I can jump. CSR says they are closer than they have been but I doubt that. #nottheleaderinsports


So them not having one sports channel makes them not the leader in sports? If that's the case then no MSO is the sports leader. But you know deep down you don't believe that and we all know DirecTV is the leader in sports hands down.


----------



## heepfan

I used the hash tag just to stir up the coals on this dead thread. However, other providers have all the sports channels I want and DirecTV doesn't so they are not leading me anywhere but away. DirecTV clearly has more but I am a college sports guy that would watch Pac12 more than any other channel most days. Many friends I brought to DirecTV have moved on and it looks like I won't get what I want unless I leave after 13 years. Angry at Pac12 as well as I know it takes two.


----------



## Hoosier205

"heepfan" said:


> I used the hash tag just to stir up the coals on this dead thread. However, other providers have all the sports channels I want and DirecTV doesn't so they are not leading me anywhere but away. DirecTV clearly has more but I am a college sports guy that would watch Pac12 more than any other channel most days. Many friends I brought to DirecTV have moved on and it looks like I won't get what I want unless I leave after 13 years. Angry at Pac12 as well as I know it takes two.


Well, hopefully PAC-12 Network improves their product to meet their rate or they reduce their rate to match a product that has its prime events diverted to other networks.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Interview: Pac 12 Commissioner Larry Scott Chats About Directv


----------



## sdk009

TheRatPatrol said:


> Interview: Pac 12 Commissioner Larry Scott Chats About Directv


Try this Link:
http://autzenzoo.com/2013/02/24/pac...questions-about-directv-night-games-and-more/

Nothing new here. Scott says the DirecTV offer is virtually the same as the other carriers; he claims that D* wants a different arrangement than what they have with the Big 10 & other RSNs; D* says they don't feel the pressure and haven't lost many subs; 
Face it D* has no desire to give PAC 12 fans what they want and nothing is going to happen until late summer when football season rolls around and the complaints pick-up. Thanks to D*, only one semifinal and the Men's Basketball Conference Tournament final will be available. All other games from the tourney will be on the PAC-12 Net.


----------



## Laxguy

sdk009 said:


> Try this Link:
> http://autzenzoo.com/2013/02/24/pac...questions-about-directv-night-games-and-more/
> 
> Nothing new here. Scott says the DirecTV offer is virtually the same as the other carriers; he claims that D* wants a different arrangement than what they have with the Big 10 & other RSNs; D* says they don't feel the pressure and haven't lost many subs;
> _Face it D* has no desire to give PAC 12 fans what they want_ and nothing is going to happen until late summer when football season rolls around and the complaints pick-up. Thanks to D*, only one semifinal and the Men's Basketball Conference Tournament final will be available. All other games from the tourney will be on the PAC-12 Net.


That's inaccurate. DIRECTV® will not give anyone Pac-12 at the rate the Scotts of the world want. A fan is a fan is a fan, and for the majority, DIRECTV® has shown they "care" about them.


----------



## Carl Spock

sdk009 said:


> Nothing new here.


True about this thread, too. I was surprised to see it back on the front page. I was hoping for some news. Nope. Same stuff, different day. I'll wait until August and we get close to the football season before I drop by this thread again.


----------



## Mariah2014

I wouldn't expect the network before August/ September. If we don't see it by then expect it to be at least two years before they do. I suspect that will be the case here.


----------



## shyvoodoo

sdk009;3186685 said:


> Try this Link:
> http://autzenzoo.com/2013/02/24/pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-answers-questions-about-directv-night-games-and-more/
> 
> Nothing new here. Scott says the DirecTV offer is virtually the same as the other carriers; he claims that D* wants a different arrangement than what they have with the Big 10 & other RSNs; D* says they don't feel the pressure and haven't lost many subs;
> Face it D* has no desire to give PAC 12 fans what they want and nothing is going to happen until late summer when football season rolls around and the complaints pick-up. Thanks to D*, only one semifinal and the Men's Basketball Conference Tournament final will be available. All other games from the tourney will be on the PAC-12 Net.


You give us a link to a story that is 9 months old to get your point across?!?!... Lolololololol

Ben
Voodoo


----------



## donalddickerson2005

shyvoodoo said:


> You give us a link to a story that is 9 months old to get your point across?!?!... Lolololololol
> 
> Ben
> Voodoo


He gives us the story because he thinks we care about pac16 or by next year 24 teams basketball games. I am sorry but the PAC has very little to offer in basketball. DirecTV might here something if we can't see football games that are big but then I'll just wait and see.


----------



## sdk009

shyvoodoo said:


> You give us a link to a story that is 9 months old to get your point across?!?!... Lolololololol


I wasn't the orginal poster of the story, I just provided a link that worked.



donalddickerson2005 said:


> He gives us the story because he thinks we care about pac16 or by next year 24 teams basketball games. I am sorry but the PAC has very little to offer in basketball. DirecTV might here something if we can't see football games that are big but then I'll just wait and see.


I'm sorry if the PAC 12 doesn't meet your "lofty" standards but some of do care.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

shyvoodoo said:


> You give us a link to a story that is 9 months old to get your point across?!?!... Lolololololol
> 
> Ben
> Voodoo


Did you actually read the article?

The link I posted was from an article from Feb. 25th referring to a live chat interview that Scott had with the Seattle Times on Feb. 21st. The date on the caption you are talking about is from a photo taken of Scott in July 2012.

Link


----------



## harsh

TheRatPatrol said:


> Did you actually read the article?


Scanning and comprehension are clearly not one-and-the-same.


----------



## Sandra

donalddickerson2005 said:


> He gives us the story because he thinks we care about pac16 or by next year 24 teams basketball games. I am sorry but the PAC has very little to offer in basketball. DirecTV might here something if we can't see football games that are big but then I'll just wait and see.


You obviously care enough to go into a Pac-12 thread and post about it... 

Sandra


----------



## sdk009

donalddickerson2005 said:


> He gives us the story because he thinks we care about pac16 or by next year 24 teams basketball games. I am sorry but the PAC has very little to offer in basketball. DirecTV might here something if we can't see football games that are big but then I'll just wait and see.


By the way, I see that you are in Acc/SEC country. Well the "lowly" PAC 12 could see as many as five teams in the tourney, while the ACC will get four in, and the SEC will be lucky to get three in. So please, do tell about how "little" the PAC 12 has to offer in basketball.


----------



## Sandra

sdk009 said:


> By the way, I see that you are in Acc/SEC country. Well the "lowly" PAC 12 could see as many as five teams in the tourney, while the ACC will get four in, and the SEC will be lucky to get three in. So please, do tell about how "little" the PAC 12 has to offer in basketball.


He's just trolling here....don't let him bother you.

Sandra


----------



## donalddickerson2005

sdk009 said:


> By the way, I see that you are in Acc/SEC country. Well the "lowly" PAC 12 could see as many as five teams in the tourney, while the ACC will get four in, and the SEC will be lucky to get three in. So please, do tell about how "little" the PAC 12 has to offer in basketball.


I live here but I grew up in saint Louis so I am big10 not sec. My other teams include baseball cardinals football 49ers hockey blues and I am a flip flopper in basketball. But my college teams are big 10 and some big 12. So don't just look at location and just make up your mind that way. 
This also is the reason I have DirecTV is to watch all my teams. Mlbei nhlci and depending on the price nflst.


----------



## sigma1914

sdk009 said:


> By the way, I see that you are in Acc/SEC country. Well the "lowly" PAC 12 could see as many as five teams in the tourney, while the ACC will get four in, and the SEC will be lucky to get three in. So please, do tell about how "little" the PAC 12 has to offer in basketball.


The ACC could easily get 6 and the SEC could get 4/5 if you think the P12 can get 5.


----------



## tjguitar

So who is going to hold out on the Pac 12 nets longer? DirecTV or AT&T?


----------



## DCSholtis

tjguitar;3205006 said:


> So who is going to hold out on the Pac 12 nets longer? DirecTV or AT&T?


It's a tie


----------



## drded

Since PAC-12 commissioner Larry Scott signed Comcast Media Center to do all their production work, tell me how objective the man can be when dealing with DirecTV?

A conflict of interest if there ever was one.

Dave


----------



## sum_random_dork

drded said:


> Since PAC-12 commissioner Larry Scott signed Comcast Media Center to do all their production work, tell me how objective the man can be when dealing with DirecTV?
> 
> A conflict of interest if there ever was one.
> 
> Dave


I understand your fear but DirecTV also uses Comcast to sell on air advertising here in Nor Cal. So as much as two sides can battle they can also be "best friends" when it's good for business.

The Pac 12 also shares some facilities in SF with Comcast Sportsnet, both offices are located in the same location. Using the Comcast location in CO probably makes sense.


----------



## Laxguy

sum_random_dork said:


> I understand your fear but DirecTV also uses Comcast to sell on air advertising here in Nor Cal. So as much as two sides can battle they can also be "best friends" when it's good for business.
> 
> The Pac 12 also shares some facilities in SF with Comcast Sportsnet, both offices are located in the same location. Using the Comcast location in CO probably makes sense.


Uh, not best friends nor even friends. Just doing business what it comes to ads.

The production tie in is way stronger than any ad sales or placement.

I have no respect for Larry Scott. (Nor the Cal AD for that matter.)


----------



## sdk009

I must admit, that I was all over D* for not picking up the PAC-12 Net. However, it has become very apparent that Scott has a huge ego and is probably standing in the way of making a deal with D*. Scott's handling of the Ed Rush/Sean Miller fiasco proves he's nothing but a self-promoting shill.

Update from Jon Wilner that a deal with one or two of the major holdouts Charter, Verizon, AT&T and/or DirecTV may be on the horizon:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...g-soon-but-not-necessarily-with-you-know-who/


----------



## Volatility

sdk009;3205175 said:


> I must admit, that I was all over D* for not picking up the PAC-12 Net. However, it has become very apparent that Scott has a huge ego and is probably standing in the way of making a deal with D*. Scott's handling of the Ed Rush/Sean Miller fiasco proves he's nothing but a self-promoting shill.
> 
> Update from Jon Wilner that a deal with one or two of the major holdouts Charter, Verizon, AT&T and/or DirecTV may be on the horizon:
> http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/04/04/pac-12-networks-distribution-deal-coming-soon-but-not-necessarily-with-you-know-who/


With D* being the largest sattelite provider in the usa, it doesn't make sense to me why larry scott and the whole pac12 crew arent willing to fairly negotiate with d*. I wonder how much money they may be losing out on by not coming to a deal with them. D* too as some customers have cancelled over it but probably not much for a significant negative financial effect.


----------



## DawgLink

I would be curious if DirecTV adds more charges to people's account if they sign a D* deal


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Maybe this will help D* get the Pac 12 Network?

http://www.multichannel.com/distribution/stevenson-exiting-post-pac-12-enterprises-president/142832


----------



## FenixTX

Just read where DirecTV added 21,000 new subs in the US along with 583,000 in Latin America. Definitely doesn't look like DirecTV will be picking up this network anytime soon. No reason for them to add the channel when they aren't losing subs and actually added more than they estimated. Estimated around 10,000 new subs so they went way over that guess.


----------



## Laxguy

FenixTX said:


> Just read where DirecTV added 21,000 new subs in the US along with 583,000 in Latin America. Definitely doesn't look like DirecTV will be picking up this network anytime soon. No reason for them to add the channel when they aren't losing subs and actually added more than they estimated. Estimated around 10,000 new subs so they went way over that guess.


I wouldn't try to tie sub's gains or losses to long term strategies or short term (exorbitant) costs.........


----------



## harsh

FenixTX said:


> Just read where DirecTV added 21,000 new subs in the US along with 583,000 in Latin America. Definitely doesn't look like DirecTV will be picking up this network anytime soon. No reason for them to add the channel when they aren't losing subs and actually added more than they estimated. Estimated around 10,000 new subs so they went way over that guess.


When you consider that last year DIRECTV added nearly four times that many customers over the same period, your argument is a little hollow. In 2011 DIRECTV added 662,000 customers but last year the number was only 199,000. This isn't about how DIRECTV compared with anyone but DIRECTV and while their financial numbers remain stellar, the years and years of trying to reduce additions has finally borne fruit.

Their estimates have often been pretty far from the actuals when it comes to net subs. It does seem to have moved up the schedule on when they started offering NFLST for free to new subscribers.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> This isn't about how DIRECTV compared with anyone but DIRECTV and while their financial numbers remain stellar, the years and years of trying to reduce additions has finally borne fruit.


Yes, additional subs are to be avoided..... Though perhaps you meant they reduced the rate of attrition.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> Yes, additional subs are to be avoided..... Though perhaps you meant they reduced the rate of attrition.


Not at all. DIRECTV was long looking to slow the pace of new additions because it added greatly to the bottom line SAC number and overhead costs associated with serving a larger customer base that had a significant negative impacted operating profit. They were all about shedding cheapskates/freebies seekers and going after "higher quality customers" (ones that invested more money).

The mistake is yours.


----------



## Laxguy

You completely jumped the shark with your first statement. No company wants to stop adding customers, and many well run companies want to add only high grade customers. Your clarifying statement is correct in that DIRECTV has stated this as a corporate goal, which doubtless they are meeting. One cannot conclude merely from the smaller number of net adds, however, that it's solely or largely due to that phenomenon.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> You completely jumped the shark with your first statement.No company wants to stop adding customers, and many well run companies want to add only high grade customers. Your clarifying statement is correct in that DIRECTV has stated this as a corporate goal, which doubtless they are meeting. One cannot conclude merely from the smaller number of net adds, however, that it's solely or largely due to that phenomenon.


I never said that DIRECTV wanted to stop net or gross adds. I cited accurately that they wanted to slow the numbers. You say I made an outlandish statement (followed by an incorrect statement on your part) and then you say that I'm right. Which is it?

Noting that they've finally met their goal in reducing the number of adds is not an observation of a "phenomenon" but rather a recognition that after five years or so, DIRECTV has met their goal. Five years is a number that seems to recur often in DIRECTV delivering on their announcements.

It is otherwise unfathomable that in the conference call, Pat Doyle characterized the 74% year-to-year decrease as "modest".


----------



## TheRatPatrol

*A nice feather in the cap for the Pac-12 Networks . . .*


> To me, and those other DirecTV subscribers, Murphy-Stephans has a forceful message:
> 
> "We're on schedule, and right on plan, in terms of distribution for the Pac-12 Networks," she said. "I feel good about that. There's an obligation as fans, that if they want Pac-12 Networks and DirecTV is not carrying the Pac-12 Networks, the fan has to be willing to drop DirecTV and pick up a carrier that is.


http://blogs.seattletimes.com/pac12confidential/2013/05/22/a-nice-feather-in-the-cap-for-the-pac-12-networks/


----------



## Devo1237

TheRatPatrol said:


> *A nice feather in the cap for the Pac-12 Networks . . .*
> 
> http://blogs.seattletimes.com/pac12confidential/2013/05/22/a-nice-feather-in-the-cap-for-the-pac-12-networks/


Ugh... There's a good chance I will end up doing that this fall, but I'll sure as heck resent the P12 nets (and DTV) for making me. At some point you just have to realize if your house ain't selling, it's not worth as much as you think it is.


----------



## mws192

Jon Wilner:

"The early-season schedule doesn't provide the Pac12Nets with any must-have games, in my opinion."

"The first Pac-12-owned, must-have game involving the L.A. schools is Sept. 28, when the Trojans visit ASU.
Then again, if there's no deal with DTV by that point, the chances of the parties reaching an agreement at any time in 2013 are mighty slim."

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/05/28/pac-12-football-previewing-espn-fox-and-pac12nets-early-season-broadcast-assignments/#more-31541


----------



## tjguitar

Its frustrating because P12N has a lot of programming that I'd be interested in - like baseball and softball which has much less ESPN coverage than football or basketball. I could switch to Time Warner, but they don't have Big Ten Network so I'd be losing some sports there. Hopefully Uverse adds P12N. Uverse is apparently already on board for SEC Network despite that being a year and a half away.


----------



## chillyfl

This is the first time I've seen a number attributed to DirecTV's offer to PAC-12. ASU AD stated they are offerring less than 2/3's of the deals that other providers have taken. DirecTV understands that west coast sports fans will be more loyal to their NFL teams and Sunday ticket than PAC-12, and don't need to pay "full price." But PAC-12 can't cut DIRECTV that much of a deal without killing future negotiations with current (and potential) providers. I just don't see where the middle ground will ever happen to get it on D*, and don't think it's going to happen.

http://arizonasports.com/44/1638300/ASU-AD-DirecTV-subscribers-should-look-to-change-if-they-want-Pac12-Network


----------



## Bambler

I'm enjoying the Pac-12 Network -- on Comcast of course. At this point I really don't care if DirecTV ever carries this channel. 

One thing that will have a huge paradigm shift, in my opinion, will be the next Sunday Ticket contract, and whether the NFL makes it an open bid, available to any provider. Sunday Ticket has become somewhat marginalized at this point anyways, and I doubt DirecTV will pay the exorbitant price for exclusive carriage rights, which means the NFL will sell it like any other channel, potentially making even more. 

If this happens, things will change, especially for DirecTV, who has parlayed Sunday Ticket for all its worth. I'll be honest, I'm really looking forward to this day. More choices is always a good thing and I will be able to bundle (for "real") Sunday Ticket into a true three for deal and cut DirecTV's beam for good.


----------



## DawgLink

Tried watching this the other day and I just can't get interested in it since I have no connection to the Pac-12 whatsoever.

Unless you graduate from one of the schools, I am unsure why the channel would interest you outside a few Saturdays during FBall season


----------



## tjguitar

I would say that outside of football saturdays, the value would be for fans of college sports that don't get aired much on ESPN - such as water polo, volleyball and soccer. Also a lot of basketball, softball, and baseball.


----------



## sdk009

DawgLink said:


> Tried watching this the other day and I just can't get interested in it since I have no connection to the Pac-12 whatsoever.
> 
> Unless you graduate from one of the schools, I am unsure why the channel would interest you outside a few Saturdays during FBall season


The same could be said for the B1G Net, and the upcoming SEC Net.


----------



## DawgLink

The same could be said for the B1G Net, and the upcoming SEC Net.
Ok?


----------



## widmark

Bambler said:


> I'm enjoying the Pac-12 Network -- on Comcast of course. At this point I really don't care if DirecTV ever carries this channel.
> 
> One thing that will have a huge paradigm shift, in my opinion, will be the next Sunday Ticket contract, and whether the NFL makes it an open bid, available to any provider. Sunday Ticket has become somewhat marginalized at this point anyways, and I doubt DirecTV will pay the exorbitant price for exclusive carriage rights, which means the NFL will sell it like any other channel, potentially making even more.
> 
> If this happens, things will change, especially for DirecTV, who has parlayed Sunday Ticket for all its worth. I'll be honest, I'm really looking forward to this day. More choices is always a good thing and I will be able to bundle (for "real") Sunday Ticket into a true three for deal and cut DirecTV's beam for good.


Time Warner already has NFL Network... not sure what the difference is between ST and NFL Net, but DTV pays $1 billion/year for exclusivity of Sunday Ticket. But DTV inked that deal before NFL Network existed. Looks like DTV's price will come down on renewal at the same time NFL's interest in exclusivity is waning and would probably ask for more... I expect no more exclusivity for DTV once the current contract runs.


----------



## widmark

chillyfl said:


> This is the first time I've seen a number attributed to DirecTV's offer to PAC-12. ASU AD stated they are offerring less than 2/3's of the deals that other providers have taken. DirecTV understands that west coast sports fans will be more loyal to their NFL teams and Sunday ticket than PAC-12, and don't need to pay "full price." But PAC-12 can't cut DIRECTV that much of a deal without killing future negotiations with current (and potential) providers. I just don't see where the middle ground will ever happen to get it on D*, and don't think it's going to happen.
> 
> http://arizonasports.com/44/1638300/ASU-AD-DirecTV-subscribers-should-look-to-change-if-they-want-Pac12-Network


All the Athletic Directors are driving the Pac-12 to demand record fees because they want the $ for their programs... almost all of which are not well funded given budget issues and in some cases big expansion projects. So whenever those guys/gals take sides against DTV (and they always do), remember they have a BIG dog in that race and they are hardly objective.

Its important for the Pac 12 to raise a lot of money for the athletic programs. But when they charge record fees (take a look at the industry record deal they pushed on ESPN/Fox) during a west coast recession, resulting in fans inability to see games... that's when these guys need to take a deep breath and look at the big picture. I am still a fan of my Pac-12 team... but less of one bc I can't see games. Who loses? The colleges, the athletes, the fans... and the short-sighted ADs/Pac-12 who are grinding for every last nickel or no soup for you. Villifying whomever doesn't accept your huge fee increase isn't going to do anything if they can't pass the fee on to subscribers or advertisers, but reducing your fee will you pinheads.


----------



## sum_random_dork

widmark said:


> All the Athletic Directors are driving the Pac-12 to demand record fees because they want the $ for their programs... almost all of which are not well funded given budget issues and in some cases big expansion projects. So whenever those guys/gals take sides against DTV (and they always do), remember they have a BIG dog in that race and they are hardly objective.
> 
> Its important for the Pac 12 to raise a lot of money for the athletic programs. But when they charge record fees (take a look at the industry record deal they pushed on ESPN/Fox) during a west coast recession, resulting in fans inability to see games... that's when these guys need to take a deep breath and look at the big picture. I am still a fan of my Pac-12 team... but less of one bc I can't see games. Who loses? The colleges, the athletes, the fans... and the short-sighted ADs/Pac-12 who are grinding for every last nickel or no soup for you. Villifying whomever doesn't accept your huge fee increase isn't going to do anything if they can't pass the fee on to subscribers or advertisers, but reducing your fee will you pinheads.


While much of what you say does overall make sense a couple of points to make. Yes it was a record deal, but that's because they were the contract up ESPN was looking for more live programing and FOX knew they'd be launching FS1, and Comcast/NBC was looking for programing for their networks. What did the SEC do right after the Pac 12 reach their deal...go and work out a new deal with ESPN to launch their own network. As for "coverage" the Pac 12 had a HORRIBLE deal before for their new TV deal. Often times Pac 10/12 games were not broadcast at all unless they were picked up by a local RSN/TV Station. That was a big part of the new deal was going out and making sure each football game would be on TV.

As for funding their athletic depts. by the TV deal, well that's true. But, shouldn't all athletic depts. try to fund as much as possible through their gate revenue and TV deals? Why should the states fund them if they can fund much of their own depts. through the deals they create and endowments?


----------



## widmark

sum_random_dork said:


> As for funding their athletic depts. by the TV deal, well that's true. But, shouldn't all athletic depts. try to fund as much as possible through their gate revenue and TV deals?


Yes, as much as possible, just not more than possible. More than possible = expensive for the schools in lost revenue and fanbase The stalemate with DTV, Charter, U-verse, and Verizon should have been Larry Scott's first hint that perhaps he asked for too much. The middlemen cable/sat co.'s will be irrelevant soon and believe me I am looking forward to it. But in the meantime, they are in the eyeballs business and if they think they can make a buck they will sign Pac-12's deal. If DTV were truly all alone in not signing then Pac-12 would have a better argument for their record fee grab and I would be on their side.

We are almost all dogged fans on this thread... don't forget many fans aren't.. so these ADs who cause the stalemate are disenfranchising the many fans who if they can't watch the Pac12, will just do/watch something else and lose interest... many for years even when they have access again. The Pac-12's economic pie shrinks for years when fans don't have access . Nobody can quantify it so apparently they think it ain't reality.


----------



## tjguitar

widmark said:


> Yes, as much as possible, just not more than possible. More than possible = expensive for the schools in lost revenue and fanbase The stalemate with DTV, Charter, U-verse, and Verizon should have been Larry Scott's first hint that perhaps he asked for too much. The middlemen cable/sat co.'s will be irrelevant soon and believe me I am looking forward to it. But in the meantime, they are in the eyeballs business and if they think they can make a buck they will sign Pac-12's deal. If DTV were truly all alone in not signing then Pac-12 would have a better argument for their record fee grab and I would be on their side.
> 
> We are almost all dogged fans on this thread... don't forget many fans aren't.. so these ADs who cause the stalemate are disenfranchising the many fans who if they can't watch the Pac12, will just do/watch something else and lose interest... many for years even when they have access again. The Pac-12's economic pie shrinks for years when fans don't have access . Nobody can quantify it so apparently they think it ain't reality.


I don't buy this simply because P12N has as much distribution as it does have - it even got on DISH. P12N is way more widely available than The MTN was before it finally caved to DirecTV. Uverse is only available in one Pac-12 market. I don't konw about Chater or Verizon.

The P12N wouldn't be on the providers that it is on if it was charging too much - it is on some tiny providers too, not just the TWC/Cox/Comcast that was originally annoucned. I really think that if P12N was just one network rather than 7 networks, that it would already be on DirecTV. It's too bad that whatever deal to DISH for just the national network apparently wasn't offered to DirecTV, because that would be better than nothing.


----------



## sum_random_dork

tjguitar said:


> It's too bad that whatever deal to DISH for just the national network apparently wasn't offered to DirecTV, because that would be better than nothing.


I have no way of knowing for sure, but from what I read the deal Dish did get was offered to DirecTV (including the in stadium advertising). The deal was laid out and DirecTV balked (probably feeling they could get a lower price if they made Pac 12 go back to the boardroom). Pac 12 Networks offered the deal to Dish and Dish took it. Is it a good deal or a bad deal...I can't say one way or another. But it surely has upset many West Coast Pac 12 fans that like having DirecTV but also like to watch their Pac 12 team(s). I don't have a good feeling at all we'll see it before this CFB season, it seems that DirecTV has drawn it's "line in the sand" on sports and is refusing to pay the fees other networks want. (but they seem happy to charge other providers for Root Sports)


----------



## widmark

If need any more convincing that the Pac-12 is being overly greedy, look at these numbers:










Pac-12 broke all the records with a $3 billion rights deal a few years ago. The chart above doesn't reflect P12-Network income or any future income from new deals such as with DirecTV, U-verse, Verizon West, and Charter. Those networks declined the Pac-12's take it or leave it deal.

The ADs and Larry Scott need to slow the train just a bit, get everybody aboard, and it will move fine. They also need to cut Scott's comp... the $3 billion reflects the quality of the conference.... not him... and they shouldn't be paying him anywhere near $3.1 million a year. Not even the Big-10 commissioner makes more than Larry.

BTW, from which Pac-12 city did Larry make his network announcement? New York City. This guy and money grab mentality are really turn offs and I will not be contributing a nickel to my college until he is gone and the P12 is back at DTV.

Sources:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/05/19/pac-12-commissioner-compensation/2324799/
http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-new-tv-deal-2011-5


----------



## Bambler

You make it sound like that's a bad thing? It is a free market after all. Does it look extravagant? Sure, but put yourself in his shoes...would you try for any less? The only people he has to answer to are the ADs, not you, me or anyone else for that matter. I can't fault him for squeezing everything he can and from the looks of it, he seemed to have done a good job, even though DirecTV is not on board yet. 

I'm sure Delaney or Silve would gladly jump at the chance for the deals that Scott achieved, and gladly be vilified for it as Scott seemingly is at the moment.


----------



## DawgLink

It is a free market after all.
That's debatable in today's Corporations-Lobby-For-Their-Rules world.


----------



## sum_random_dork

widmark said:


> If need any more convincing that the Pac-12 is being overly greedy, look at these numbers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pac-12 broke all the records with a $3 billion rights deal a few years ago. The chart above doesn't reflect P12-Network income or any future income from new deals such as with DirecTV, U-verse, Verizon West, and Charter. Those networks declined the Pac-12's take it or leave it deal.
> 
> The ADs and Larry Scott need to slow the train just a bit, get everybody aboard, and it will move fine. They also need to cut Scott's comp... the $3 billion reflects the quality of the conference.... not him... and they shouldn't be paying him anywhere near $3.1 million a year. Not even the Big-10 commissioner makes more than Larry.
> 
> BTW, from which Pac-12 city did Larry make his network announcement? New York City. This guy and money grab mentality are really turn offs and I will not be contributing a nickel to my college until he is gone and the P12 is back at DTV.
> 
> Sources:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/05/19/pac-12-commissioner-compensation/2324799/
> http://www.businessinsider.com/pac-12-new-tv-deal-2011-5


I am confused here, why are you blaming Larry Scott for doing his job? When he was hired they added 2 more schools to up the value of the Conference and Network. Also take into account the new Pac12 contract kicked in last year, so the #s will be bigger. Moving forward those #s will change as the other deals come into effect. I guess my other question is what is your school you don't want to contribute to? Were you sending money to the school or the athletic dept? The idea behind these deals was to hopefully make the athletic depts. self sufficient moving forward.

As for the Pac12 network in general, rumor has it all the money that was made by the network will be poured right back into the network and no school will be taking a "payout" this year.


----------



## Laxguy

sum_random_dork said:


> I am confused here, why are you blaming Larry Scott for doing his job? When he was hired they added 2 more schools to up the value of the Conference and Network. Also take into account the new Pac12 contract kicked in last year, so the #s will be bigger. Moving forward those #s will change as the other deals come into effect. I guess my other question is what is your school you don't want to contribute to? Were you sending money to the school or the athletic dept? The idea behind these deals was to hopefully make the athletic depts. self sufficient moving forward.
> 
> As for the Pac12 network in general, rumor has it all the money that was made by the network will be poured right back into the network and no school will be taking a "payout" this year.


Not arguing your points, but some of us blame Scott for overreaching. In bond trading, there's an old saying re profits: Being a pig is all right, but hogs get slaughtered.


----------



## widmark

SumR... You sound more defensive than confused....

The college presidents and ADs are the ones that hired Larry. He has no stake in this other than a paycheck... And thats in part why if you have DTV, Charter, Verizon, or Uverse you are unhappy if you love the P12. He is a nonP12 alumn who thinks he's running NBC Sports rather than an NCAA conference. It's not all his doing... The college chancellors are the ones approving the moves Larry makes.

The goal of the (especially publicly funded ) Pac12 unversities should be to reach close to all viewers first, and maximize dollars second. The colleges benefit from exposure, and so do fans and alumni in ways that have nothing to do with annual network revenue sharing. A private sports network is a pure profit enterprise... He should try that route and not hijack the P12 to run it like one.

If your "rumor" is true that Larry generated his $3+ million paycheck by grinding out a $3 billion deal that is costing $250M in the first year and presumably more in future years... In addition to stranding a bunch of viewers.... Sounds like he and his strategy are less beneficial to the P12 than even I gave him credit for.


----------



## tjguitar

Oh, don't worry, the SEC and Big Ten will be making more money than the Pac 12 when their contracts expire in the next ew years.


The P12N annoucnced their fall volleyball schedule. 90 games on P12N, that's a little bit more than last year....which is awesome for volleyball fans. Way more than you see the other conferences broadcast.


DirecTV wants to pay a lot less than everybody else is, like they did with the MTN - that's their choice. If fans don't want to switch providers to get the networks they want, that's their choice too.

If P12N accepts DTV's lowball offer, that might affect their contracts with the other providers and bankrupt the network. Who knows what is going on.


I know that I am switching to Time Warner if Uverse or DirecTV do not add it. If I switch to TWC, I will lose the Big Ten Network, but I'd rather have the pac 12 network anyway.

I don't want the P12N to go the way of the MTN- all sports other than football and men's basketball have way less games on TV since the mtn went bankrupt. If keeping P12N off DirecTV allows the network to survive- I'm for that.


----------



## camo

I almost convinced myself to change to Dish for the pac 12 network then I remembered how the regional Fox sports baseball games were sd 40% of the time. I also ran across a few post stating how poor some of the HD games looked last year on Dish. I think I'll hold out 1 more year with the believe both SEC and Pac12 will come in 2014 to Directv. 
For those that don't have cable as an option and want to keep Directv you can get the Dish Tailgater and use it for the 4 football months no contract required. Get the 120 package which comes with pac12 network. I believe they charge an additional 7 dollars fee each month plus the tv package you choose. I'm seriously thinking about it, plus I can use it for camping and other activities.


----------



## inkahauts

tjguitar said:


> Oh, don't worry, the SEC and Big Ten will be making more money than the Pac 12 when their contracts expire in the next ew years.
> The P12N annoucnced their fall volleyball schedule. 90 games on P12N, that's a little bit more than last year....which is awesome for volleyball fans. Way more than you see the other conferences broadcast.
> DirecTV wants to pay a lot less than everybody else is, like they did with the MTN - that's their choice. If fans don't want to switch providers to get the networks they want, that's their choice too.
> If P12N accepts DTV's lowball offer, that might affect their contracts with the other providers and bankrupt the network. Who knows what is going on.
> I know that I am switching to Time Warner if Uverse or DirecTV do not add it. If I switch to TWC, I will lose the Big Ten Network, but I'd rather have the pac 12 network anyway.
> I don't want the P12N to go the way of the MTN- all sports other than football and men's basketball have way less games on TV since the mtn went bankrupt. If keeping P12N off DirecTV allows the network to survive- I'm for that.


I hope not, at least not more per school for sure. But the more they get the more they want to charge us.

And I don't know why you think DIRECTV is lowball ing them. Anything the pac12 is asking for is highball in the first apace to be honest. But still, if they offered to carry it a la cart or in the sports tier likely for their asking price, I don't consider it a low ball offer simply because it won't reach as many people, especially if those people likely don't want it anyway. Not if it raises everyone's rates far beyond what we paid for content last year.

No sports channels want to be pushed to a separate tier, but its going to happen at some point, and sometime soon. And I wouldn't bet on the Dodgers, sec, or any other sports channel getting on DIRECTV anytime soon.


----------



## camo

inkahauts said:


> . And I wouldn't bet on the Dodgers, sec, or any other sports channel getting on DIRECTV anytime soon.


Dodgers network like shorthorn network will never get on, Not because of the teams but being an dedicated channel for one team will not happen. Longhorn network will soon go away when the ESPN contract expires.
As for the SEC network guaranteed money in the bank first year. SEC is already negotiating with all major networks including Direct even though they won't start until August 2014 there will be a deal. I figure pac12 network will take a similar deal with less payout because lets face it the SEC rules ratings in college football and happens to be in the south the most populace area of the country.


----------



## Laxguy

The South is the most densely populated area of the US? What's the basis for this claim/statement?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Laxguy said:


> The South is the most densely populated area of the US? What's the basis for this claim/statement?


Actually, he said populous and by that measure, and using the US Census Bureau regions, the South has the highest population....by a lot.

However, the North East has the highest population density followed by California.

So, I understand his point. There are a lot of eyes watching the SEC.

Mike

Mike


----------



## tjguitar

inkahauts said:


> I hope not, at least not more per school for sure. But the more they get the more they want to charge us.
> 
> And I don't know why you think DIRECTV is lowball ing them. Anything the pac12 is asking for is highball in the first apace to be honest. But still, if they offered to carry it a la cart or in the sports tier likely for their asking price, I don't consider it a low ball offer simply because it won't reach as many people, especially if those people likely don't want it anyway. Not if it raises everyone's rates far beyond what we paid for content last year.
> 
> No sports channels want to be pushed to a separate tier, but its going to happen at some point, and sometime soon. And I wouldn't bet on the Dodgers, sec, or any other sports channel getting on DIRECTV anytime soon.


I would be shocked if the Dodgers RSN is not picked up on DirecTV. They will lose far more subs for that than the P12N. P12N is a bargain compared to the Dodgers alleged asking price, but Dodgers will most likely appear on DirecTV first.


----------



## camo

tjguitar said:


> I would be shocked if the Dodgers RSN is not picked up on DirecTV. They will lose far more subs for that than the P12N. P12N is a bargain compared to the Dodgers alleged asking price, but Dodgers will most likely appear on DirecTV first.


You're dreaming in la la land again. Read my lips no single team will ever be picked up. Period..... Doesn't matter how many subs they may lose if the Dodger network were forced on me I would drop Directv in a second.


----------



## nvsundevil

I have been following this forum in hopes of learning how to stream Pac12 games on my iPad. Am a DTV sub; been there done that with Dish and not planning on going back. Friends are not into college football wherein I might login to accounts to stream............any suggestions????


----------



## donm

nvsundevil said:


> I have been following this forum in hopes of learning how to stream Pac12 games on my iPad. Am a DTV sub; been there done that with Dish and not planning on going back. Friends are not into college football wherein I might login to accounts to stream............any suggestions????


I don't think there is anyway to stream Pac 12 Network without being a subscriber to cable(that carries Pac 12) or Dish. That is legally and not sure it is possible to even stream Pac 12 Network illegally.


----------



## nvsundevil

donm said:


> I don't think there is anyway to stream Pac 12 Network without being a subscriber to cable(that carries Pac 12) or Dish. That is legally and not sure it is possible to even stream Pac 12 Network illegally.


Thx for the info........appreciate it.......will just have to listen on the radio!!!


----------



## inkahauts

camo said:


> You're dreaming in la la land again. Read my lips no single team will ever be picked up. Period..... Doesn't matter how many subs they may lose if the Dodger network were forced on me I would drop Directv in a second.


wait, if dtv gets the Dodgers channel you are automatically going to dump DIRECTV? Why exactly?

I don't think it will come right away, if ever, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it did show up at some point. I'd love for it to be in a higher tier or a la cart, but I doubt that will happen.

And by the way, the Lakers channel was pretty close to a single team channel and it did get picked up. It does happen. And the Yankees network is pretty close to single team as well. We all know the dodger network will have more than just dodgers on it, eventually as well.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## DCSholtis

Well now ATT U-Verse picked up 3 of the channels as of yesterday I see.

Sent from Raider Nation using DBSTalk mobile app


----------

