Bear Down Wildcats

MrBug708 wrote:Apparently TWC wants 4 dollars a subscriber for their Dodger network. I heard on the radio that it would be the second highest package (sports?) behind only ESPN. They offered to go to arbitration but it looks like DTV is turning them down.

This probably has some sort of ramification for DTV and the P12 network.

ESPN does bundle the horrible Disney channels too.

Southern CA pays $4 for each subscriber for the Lakers channel. So glad I dropped Directv since I don't watch NBA.

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/


– Big Ten Network numbers are estimated based on homes inside and outside of Big Ten territory. Homes within Big Ten states, including New York and Maryland, pay $1.00/month for BTN.

MrBug708 wrote:Apparently TWC wants 4 dollars a subscriber for their Dodger network. I heard on the radio that it would be the second highest package (sports?) behind only ESPN. They offered to go to arbitration but it looks like DTV is turning them down.

This probably has some sort of ramification for DTV and the P12 network.

Second highest period, not just sports. The biggest fee for a non-3D channel is TNT at $1.20, the only other channel over $1.

and no one cares about baseball anymore to pay that kind of money for a network just about the dodgers. should be no more than like 60 cents.

21st Century Fox's Fox Sports West, home of Angels baseball and Clippers basketball, charges $1.40 a month, according to SNL Kagan. Fox's Prime Ticket, the former Dodgers home, costs $3.19, while SportsNet and Deportes, Time Warner Cable's Lakers channels, cost $3.22. The Pac-12 college channels average 76 cents.

http://adage.com/article/media/dodger-f ... ee/291871/

ASUHATER! wrote:and no one cares about baseball anymore to pay that kind of money for a network just about the dodgers. should be no more than like 60 cents.

Is 0.60 some number with research behind it? Or the first number that came to your mind?

The official split between the conference and ESPN isn't public, but I've been told by several people on both sides of the deal that 50/50 is pretty accurate. Using that as a template then the SEC would receive $275 million. Dividing that between the 14 member schools leaves us right at $19.6 million per school. This means that combined with the existing money coming in from ESPN and CBS, every SEC school will be bringing in a whopping $40 million or more in TV revenue by the third year of the SEC Network. That's roughly double what the league schools receive right now and $15 million more per school than any conference received in 2013.

Putting that TV money into perspective, $40 million in revenue would have made you the 62st largest athletic department in the country last year. Using Mississippi State as an example, the SEC Network money that Outkick projects the Bulldogs will land in three years, would take State, the lowest revenue producing school in the SEC, from the 49th largest athletic program in the country to around the 30th largest. For schools like Alabama and Florida, already among the top revenue schools in the country, the SEC Network money will allow them to challenge Texas for the title of largest athletic department in the country. Remember when the Longhorn Network seemed like a big deal? Every SEC school will make more money off the SEC Network than Texas does off the Longhorn Network.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footba ... ive-073014

Who in his right mind would still be on DirecTV if you could get Pac-12 elsewhere?

I'm not shilling for Dish, but DirecTV has made zero competitive charge in response to all of DIsh's market gains of the last two years.

Directv very close to signing the SEC network: http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/directv ... twork.html

leaving even less money for the PAC-12.

SEC and DirecTV have closed the deal.

Sec network will easily get on pretty much every provider by launch. It's already on brighthouse, time Warner, Comcast, cox, charter, cablevision, dish and directv.

But yet 2 years in the Pac 12 still isn't on directv and many Comcast customers don't have it and it's not on most cablevision or brighthouse or charter cable either.

There's a reason why the SEC is able to get a deal and we aren't.

They have a much stronger viewing audience and more fans who are willing to pay to see their product. The PAC-12 does not have the same leverage.

Read earlier the SEC is getting $1.30 per subscriber. Big-10 gets around $1 and the PAC is demanding $0.80.

Larry Scott says: "You have to look at this based on where we'll be after 10 years," he says. "Not three."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-pac ... tml#page=1

After making The Weather Channel apologize no way is Directv going to back down to Scott.

Salty wrote:There's a reason why the SEC is able to get a deal and we aren't.

They have a much stronger viewing audience and more fans who are willing to pay to see their product. The PAC-12 does not have the same leverage.

We'd might gain more of an audience if more people had access to the channel. We had the #1 basketball team in the country for 8 weeks last season, yet most of America couldn't even watch all our games.

Of course, there were a few times where they wouldn't switch to our game on ANY Pac 12 channel, but that's a completely different problem...

Think the biggest leverage point (not the only) is BTN, SECNet and P12Net are different models. Pac12, Larry Scott and Pac12 Presidents decided to opt for a wholly owned network unlike the others.

So BTN, SecNetwork partnered with Fox and ESPN (Disney) who then negotiate with carriers including DirecTV to distribute using their broadcast/channels as a heavy bat. So much so that Pac12et has to asked for a lower per subscriber rate than BTN or SECNet. But that was the vision from Scott and the Presidents. Marathon, not a sprint.

So far revenue wise, Pac12Net has stayed competitive regarding revenue with BTN and not expected to be too far behind SECNet because not having to split 49/51 or 50/50 with a Fox/ESPN partner. However, subscriber wise, not close

Articles regarding:
LATimes
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-pac ... tml#page=1

FoxSports
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footba ... ive-073014

If you don't have dish and live in the south or mid Atlantic...then you don't get the Pac 12 network. Probably only 1/5 people in the south have it.

From that linked article:

First, they sold the rights to their prime football and men's basketball games to ESPN and Fox for an estimated $3 billion over 12 years

Directv feels they get the best PAC games without the PAC-12 network for the above reason.

Salty wrote:There's a reason why the SEC is able to get a deal and we aren't.

They have a much stronger viewing audience and more fans who are willing to pay to see their product. The PAC-12 does not have the same leverage.

Yet you're totally fine with the way Larry Scott is running this fiasco knowing that fact?

Go take a lap Salty.

Merkin wrote:From that linked article:

First, they sold the rights to their prime football and men's basketball games to ESPN and Fox for an estimated $3 billion over 12 years

Directv feels they get the best PAC games without the PAC-12 network for the above reason.

More BS excuse from DTV. The B1G Network also carries all the stuff that otherwise wouldn't have been televised. I imagine the same goes with the new SEC network. CBS isn't going to like paying for a Florida/Vandy game because SEC-Net wants Alabama/LSU.

DTV doesn't think it makes financial sense to carry the P12N, and that's fine. Everyone can understand that. So why the endless bullshit and misdirection coming out of them? Why do they even still care?

AZcatgirl wrote: We'd might gain more of an audience if more people had access to the channel. We had the #1 basketball team in the country for 8 weeks last season, yet most of America couldn't even watch all our games.

Of course, there were a few times where they wouldn't switch to our game on ANY Pac 12 channel, but that's a completely different problem...

Never had that issue with the AZ channel. Are you thinking of FS1?

The worst was two years ago. Might have been the ASU game on Fox or ESPN that didn't flip over until the second quarter.

ElGatoBlanco wrote:

Salty wrote:There's a reason why the SEC is able to get a deal and we aren't.

They have a much stronger viewing audience and more fans who are willing to pay to see their product. The PAC-12 does not have the same leverage.

Yet you're totally fine with the way Larry Scott is running this fiasco knowing that fact?

Go take a lap Salty.

Larry Scott doesn't have the same leverage. Not all conferences were created equal.

Salty wrote:

ElGatoBlanco wrote:

Salty wrote:There's a reason why the SEC is able to get a deal and we aren't.

They have a much stronger viewing audience and more fans who are willing to pay to see their product. The PAC-12 does not have the same leverage.

Yet you're totally fine with the way Larry Scott is running this fiasco knowing that fact?

Go take a lap Salty.

Larry Scott doesn't have the same leverage. Not all conferences were created equal.

Larry Scott doesn't seem to know that. You can't play hardball without a mitt.

Merkin wrote:Never had that issue with the AZ channel. Are you thinking of FS1?

The worst was two years ago. Might have been the ASU game on Fox or ESPN that didn't flip over until the second quarter.

No, I'm thinking of Pac 12 last season. Oregon/Utah went to overtime, and every Pac 12 channel showed the game instead of switching to ours. I remember everyone being pissed that not even Pac 12 Arizona would switch. We were #1 at the time for pete sake. Granted, it was just the massacre of WSU, but still they should've switched.

AZCatGirl wrote:

Merkin wrote:Never had that issue with the AZ channel. Are you thinking of FS1?

The worst was two years ago. Might have been the ASU game on Fox or ESPN that didn't flip over until the second quarter.

No, I'm thinking of Pac 12 last season. Oregon/Utah went to overtime, and every Pac 12 channel showed the game instead of switching to ours. I remember everyone being pissed that not even Pac 12 Arizona would switch. We were #1 at the time for pete sake. Granted, it was just the massacre of WSU, but still they should've switched.

Sorry. You were talking about basketball in that post too, but I was still thinking of football.

Well that I don't get, because they interrupt and switch all the time. I understand when it is an ASU game, or if the early game decided the regular season champ or something important (because not everyone pays for the national feed) but no excuse for not flipping from an UO/UU game.

Merkin wrote:
Larry Scott doesn't seem to know that. You can't play hardball without a mitt.

Exactly. Hell the two successful conference networks are run by FOX and ESPN. Why the hell we felt we had to go it alone is beyond me. If you sell off 49% of the network to the highest bidder like FOX then they can package the network in with the rest of their channels. If expanding the reach of the conference was a goal then that's what the conference should have done from the get go.

The Big Ten built the guideline on how to do this. The SEC followed and the Pac-12 didn't. Now here Pac-12 fans are with their dick in their hands and the SEC on every major provider.

Definitely ElGato, good post. I'm 100% stuck d*ck-in-hand here in DC, as are thousands of other P12 alums/fans in the immediate vicinity. I'm semi-embarrassed to even be a fan of a team in this conference when the various conference networks are brought up with my friends. Or when I have to tell them why I can't watch an AZ game on my TV.

Nobody wants to hear the entire schpiel and I don't care to get into it so I'm stuck saying 'yeaaa, f*ckin larry scott's a moron, the P12 sucks' and then just moving on with my life and watching pathetic online feeds alone. Really takes the joy and comraderie out of watching alot of the games; basically if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around does it make a noise type situation. I think a tree still makes a noise but the P12 does not, I can tell you that.

Nobody out East gives a sh*t because there is no exposure. Imagine if we weren't fans of AZ and Miller? The only reason we get the exposure we do now is because Miller has basically forced people to pay attention.

I have dishtv!

Larry is not amused by RR ("he touched the ball" reference toward the end of the interview). Classic.
[youtube]bkyNmfrqjGc[/youtube]

that was great. Very candid. I loved the "He touched the ball" line.

Almost hope he's fined for it... Piss and vinegar can be useful.

Sure love RR's candor.

Did not know that rule about non-recruited walk ons have to wait 2 years until they can get a scholie. Unreal.

I turned on flash on my browser just to watch that after reading about the touched the ball reference.

Good stuff, like his candor (as Merkin points out) and like his amusing "can't say anything about the pac12"....lol

RR and his personality are the perfect fit for Arizona and Tucson.

jollything wrote:RR and his personality are the perfect fit for Arizona and Tucson.

Classic! He's awesome.

Loved it. I hope RR stays in Tucson for a long, long time.

AZCatGirl wrote:Loved it. I hope RR stays in Tucson for a long, long time.

Same here. Not sure if he can get Arizona to the next level, but maybe no one can. Love his personality, his work ethic, his honesty, and his offense.

azthrillhouse wrote:Larry is not amused by RR ("he touched the ball" reference toward the end of the interview). Classic.
[youtube]bkyNmfrqjGc[/youtube]

It's easy to see why he's got the reputation he does. Being on the side of players/walkons against the NCAA is the same common man approach that has marked all his coaching stops. It's also why I think the same qualities that got him axed at Michigan will get him love at Arizona.

Love RR.

With the addition of Longhorn Network, plus SEC Network and SEC Network +, WatchESPN is now the live streaming home for 10 ESPN networks, including ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Goal Line/Buzzer Beater/Bases Loaded, ESPN Deportes, ESPNEWS and ESPN3.

http://www.texassports.com/news/2014/8/ ... 45531.aspx

HOW ESPN CRUNCHED THE PAC-12 COMPETITION

Two years after its launch, I’ve never seen a second of the Pac-12 Network. Apparently, I’m not alone.

Meanwhile, Verizon FiOS broke the news to me earlier this week that no longer would I miss a minute of a Paul Finebaum Show simulcast. The SEC Network, which may very well be the crowning achievement in the rise of the ESPN empire, is coming to my cable package at some point before Texas A&M and South Carolina kick off on Thursday night.

The two events–or lack thereof, in the Pac-12’s case–aren’t exactly unrelated.

We’re going on five years since the college football key party shook up the sport’s landscape. Just as historical scholars might look at events such as the French Revolution through the lens of economics or religion, sports pundits now use anything from dollars to recruiting to exposure to tell the story of Conference Realignment (circa 2010). Ultimately, though, it’s about ESPN clubbing potential competitors to keep control of college football firmly in its grasp.

Consider what Scott was proposing to with his aborted “Pac-16” play. By adding six members from the 2009 vintage of the Big 12, including Oklahoma and Texas, to the old Pac-10, the Pac-16 would have dominated college sports west of the Mississippi.

The league would have had massive leverage in the sports media marketplace. Imagine the kind of media rights deal such a conglomeration could have commanded.

Even worse for ESPN, the Pac-16 could have eventually cut the Worldwide Leader out of the picture entirely by keeping its content all to itself for the league’s wholly owned conference network. (Similarly, the Big Ten stands to put a dent in the ESPN portfolio in the near future should the conference go all-in with FOX, an equity partner in the Big Ten Network, on its next media rights deal.)

Instead, ESPN used the crisis to tighten its hold on the sport. The creation of the Texas-centric Longhorn Network accomplished the twin goals of:

Killing off the Pac-16 threat; and
Buying off the most powerful individual player in college sports.
Not to mention, it got its own laboratory to test out a team-specific media channel, a business model that stands to become more viable in the digital age.

Combine the LHN with exclusive deals with both the SEC and ACC, and ESPN essentially owns college sports in the fast-growing markets of Texas and the Southeast. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the success of the SEC Network launch, ESPN has the market power to push around cable operators in negotiations.

All the while, the Pac-12 Network sits out of sight, out of mind. Think the Pac-16 Network would be facing the same carriage issues?

Despite the fanfare accompanying the SEC Network’s kick-off, that might be the biggest win of all for college football’s true king.

http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/how-esp ... ition.html

so true. so annoyingly true. and here the pac 12 sits just hoping that we get the attention we deserve from the east coast bias types...and well...we are only set up to have that get worse and worse.

thanks Larry.

When you line up all of Larry successes versus all of Larry's failures, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he is not the right fit for the job that he has.

And the unfortunate thing is the only thing that is really compelling about the Pac12 network is basketball... so that pretty much means only die hard Arizona fans care.

I still haven't found a sports bar in a metro area of 1.6 mill that carries the pac12 network. Sad

CalStateTempe wrote:I still haven't found a sports bar in a metro area of 1.6 mill that carries the pac12 network. Sad

Well that's because you chose not to live in Phoenix. The city on the hill. The center of the civilized universe and mecca for all learned thought and culture.

It is so hard to watch the games out here in Washington, DC.

Comcast doesn't even carry the Pac-12 network either for some reason.

Pretty embarrassing.

Comcast carries Pac12 in the Chicago area!

In low definition...

Not all conferences were created equal.

It baffles me that people think the PAC-12 should have a deal like the Big Ten or SEC.

Salty wrote:Not all conferences were created equal.

It baffles me that people think the PAC-12 should have a deal like the Big Ten or SEC.

That's loser talk. The Pac-12 should absolutely have a deal on par with the Big Ten or SEC. And I would hope that anyone who doesn't think so isn't the head of the fucking conference...

Salty wrote:Not all conferences were created equal.

It baffles me that people think the PAC-12 should have a deal like the Big Ten or SEC.

Larry Scott does and that's what he sold the school presidents. He overplayed his hand and now PAC-12 fans with DirecTV and those who don't live in the West are getting screwed because of it.

Chicat wrote:

Salty wrote:Not all conferences were created equal.

It baffles me that people think the PAC-12 should have a deal like the Big Ten or SEC.

That's loser talk. The Pac-12 should absolutely have a deal on par with the Big Ten or SEC. And I would hope that anyone who doesn't think so isn't the head of the fucking conference...

Really. And why is that? Our viewing base is much smaller and we don't have an existing relationship with ESPN.

Larry Scott has preformed a miracle by just getting us our current deal. Anything more isn't realistic. The leverage of Texas would have changed everything.

Salty wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Salty wrote:Not all conferences were created equal.

It baffles me that people think the PAC-12 should have a deal like the Big Ten or SEC.

That's loser talk. The Pac-12 should absolutely have a deal on par with the Big Ten or SEC. And I would hope that anyone who doesn't think so isn't the head of the fucking conference...

Really. And why is that? Our viewing base is much smaller and we don't have an existing relationship with ESPN.

Larry Scott has preformed a miracle by just getting us our current deal. Anything more isn't realistic. The leverage of Texas would have changed everything.

If this wasn't coming from the resident Board Contrarian, I'd take this post more seriously.

- His job was to create a relationship with the most major players, and ESPN is of course the biggest.
- He did not "perform a miracle". Can you find any evidence that he somehow got something vastly more than what everyone expected?
- It's realistic to have the Pac-12 be a nationwide brand. Sorry I don't share your view that a conference that goes from the Mexican border to the Canadian border and is the only major brand in two entire time zones isn't on the same level as others. Like I said, loser talk.

Besides 5 of the top 15 metro areas int the US just in the PAC footprint, along with number 1 metro area in the US without a pro football team. Ignoring local Directv viewers when they have all the cards is just arrogant.