Quantcast

Comments about ‘Pac-12 reaches deal with cable cooperative’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, July 20 2012 5:36 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

@Snack PAC

The "main draw" in 2009 was...

Vegas Bowl
#16 BYU (10-2) vs #13 Oregon State (8-3) ... rating 2.2

Poinsettia Bowl
Utah (9-3) vs Cal (8-4) ... rating 2.4

So even with a better bowl, better teams the "legacy program" couldn't muster up good enough Nielsen Ratings?

Go figure!

Snack PAC
Olympus Cove, Utah

Uteology:

You still haven't produced regular season numbers from 2011, when Utah was "supposedly" drawing larger audiences on Fox 13, than BYU was drawing on ESPN.

A comparison of two late-night, mid-week bowl games when BYU was playing Oregon State (with a very small fanbase), while Utah was playing California (with a hugh fanbase) is hardly adequate proof of Utah's "superior" drawing power.

----------

btw, #14 BCS/#15 AP BYU dominated #18 BCS/#16 AP Oregon State so completely, that it dropped Oregon State completely out of the final rankings - costing BYU one of those coveted wins over a "ranked BCS" opponent.

The Cougars would have been better off only beating the Beavers by a touchdown or two - at least according to the convoluted ratings formulae of the kids on the hill.

Go figure!

Duckhunter
Highland, UT

@hymn to the silent

I challenge you to produce evidence of your claim. I know you cannot because it is false but I will be awaiting your tortured attempt.

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

@Snack

True but I never claimed Utah is a "legacy program" with a "national brand" while trying to put down my rival as a "commuter school".

The lack of TV ratings for BYU games is adequate proof that BYU isn't a "legacy program" with a "national brand". Because if it was you wouldn't need to use Oregon Stat's "very small fan-base" as an excuse for why your game was the lowest rated bowl game.

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

@Snack
The Cougars would have been better off only beating the Beavers by a touchdown or two - at least according to the convoluted ratings formulae of the kids on the hill.

----------

Utah also pounded #18 Pitt 35-7 and #24 Georgia Tech 38-10 who then dropped out one or both polls. So what?

Actually, the Cougars would have been better off if they could actually beat someone: 2-25 vs AP final ranked teams since 1996.

Again, this had nothing to do with Utah. You're a so called "legacy program", why not try to play like one?

CG
Orem, UT

Uteology

Pittsburgh should never have been ranked in the first place. The Panthers finished in a four-way time for first (one game ahead of 5th place) in a seven team conference and weren't ranked at all until the final week of the regular season when the pollsters panicked and slipped the Panthers into the polls when it became apparent that the Panthers might get an auto-bid to a BCS bowl.

Instead of fixating on beating "bcs" and "ranked" teams, the Utes should be concentrating on beating ALL of the 10-loss and losing teams on their schedule.

Legacy programs seldom lose to teams with losing records, which is the difference between being a perennial Top 25 team, and a team that has to boast about their wins over Top 25 teams, because they're not good enough to actually finish in the Top 25 themselves.

Uteology
East Salt Lake City, Utah

@CG

Nice try but the 2004 Pitt was ranked in AP/Coaches:

#26/#35 in week 13
#28/#30 in week 14
#19/#21 in week 15
#19/#20 in week 16
#25/#28 in Final Rankings

Source: ESPN

Perennial top 25 legacy programs don't boast about wins against cupcakes only and national brands don't have the lowest rated bowl games. This is not an opinion, go do some research.

Ibleedcrimson
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"Of course you couldn't, so you resorted to numbers from bowl games where Boise State, California, Alabama and the Sugar Bowl were the main draws, NOT Utah... as for the Sun and Armed Forces Bowls, see above."

That may very well be true. But how do you explaim a BYU program with a supposed "national following" and an who supposedly an ESPN flagship not transcending those numbers? Maybe your not the main draw you think you are???

EdGrady
Idaho Falls, ID

Exciting! What next - PBS?

Solomon Levi
Alpine, UT

Uteology

Nice try, but the 2004 Pitt was NOT ranked in AP/Coaches until the final week of the regular season, just as BC said:

Pittsburgh's final regular season game was played in week 15.

#26/#35 in week 13 (NOT ranked in AP/Coaches Top 25)
#28/#30 in week 14 (NOT ranked in AP/Coaches Top 25)
#19/#21 in week 15 (final regular season game; ranked for the first time in AP/Coaches)
#19/#20 in week 16 (ranked in polls released the week after Pittsburgh's final game)
#25/#28 in Final Rankings (ranked ONLY in AP Top 25)

----------

Ibleedcrimson

BYU doesn't have to explain anything - BYU's 8-year exclusive contract with ESPN is proof enough of BYU's national drawing power. If the bean counters at ESPN didn't think BYU could generate enough national interest for ESPN to make a profit, the BYU-ESPN partnership never would have been created in the first place.

11 of BYU's 13 games last season were televised by ESPN.

Contrast that with Utah, which was completely ignored by ESPN/ABC when televised games were being decided last August.

CougFaninTX
Frisco, TX

Lots of bantering back and forth, with each side distorting statistics to try and make their point.

Here's what we know:

BYU's contract with ESPN has paid huge dividends in money and exposure. BYU's schedule improved in 2013, just like Holmoe said it would, to rival most conference schedules (excluding SEC).

PAC12's new media contract will pay even bigger dividends in money. Most of the games will be televised outside of basic cable / satelite packages. If you are a fan of the U, you are paying more to go watch a game at the stadium (since ticket prices went up) and if you want to watch at home you have have to pay more for special packages (just like The MTN). It's great that the university is making a bazillion dollars, but guess who is paying for it - you the fan!

We also know the PAC12 is the only "major" conference not to win a championship in the BCS era.

I'm happy to watch my Cougars on ESPN or BYUtv that are included in my basic DirecTV package. The university is making more and it doesn't cost me anything.

motorbike
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Uteanymous,

Your comment: The National PAC 12 Network (available August 15th), WILL NOT be on any "basic cable packages"

WRONG!!!

From SI:
"In Pac-12 states, the national and/or appropriate regional network (Washington, Oregon, Northern California, Southern California, Arizona or Colorado/Utah) will be available on basic cable from day one. The national network will be available on those companies' digital sports tiers in other parts of the country."

And then there's this:
"Whereas the five-year-old Big Ten Network spent its first year in contentious negotiations with cable networks (today it has 45 million subscribers and is available in 80 million homes), and the first-year Longhorn Network is still only available to a scant few, the Pac-12 can already claim its networks will be available in 40 million homes."

Mind you this was before they worked things out for all the cable co-ops and before settling negotiations with the satellite vendors, which will happen, guaranteed.

So there you have it, a large portion of the country will be watching two Pac 12 stations from their basic tier cable package.

So now who was it that was WISHING what they were saying was true?

sammyg
Springville, UT

Motorbike

Am I missing something here? Which number is bigger 6 or 44?

Regional networks free in their respective regions and the national network free as well 'in region'. Then you say...

"The national network will be available on those companies' digital sports tiers in other parts of the country."

The last I observed is that the PAC is located across only 6 states, not a "large portion of the country". Would that be an indication that the PAC Network might be a premium subscription service or sports tier package in 44 states?

"So there you have it, a large portion of the country will (NOT) be watching two Pac 12 stations from their basic tier cable package."

Nice try, but we will know soon enough.

This NCTC co-op deal is really not much except for the little cable companies and fans in the six states.

For the few 1000's of Ute fans outside of Utah it's a great day, maybe?

motorbike
Cottonwood Heights, UT

sammyg,

You crack me up. If you want to think the Pac 12 tv deal isn't that great, go ahead and keep thinking that way. You're joined in that thought process with several other BYU fans and that's about it.

First of all you're incorrect about 6 states ... you'll find that the "regions" aren't tied to just the states that have a University. The regions and main network channel will have overlap into several other western states.

That being said, you are certainly correct that the network will not be on basic tiers in a lot of states. So what? How many sports fans in the U.S. do you think have basic cable to begin with?

I for one have the B1G network. Why? Because I pay for a decent cable package. That's right, I'm not a 75 year old penny-pinching BYU fan. Open your eyes to reality ... reality is that the Pac 12 network has more momentum going into it's first season than any other conference affiliated station to date and that's before satellite arrangements have been worked out.

The fact is, this is killing you inside.

sammyg
Springville, UT

Motorbike

Never said it wasn't great, it's just not as big as you think it is.

You are so desperate for fans and attention and I know it kills you to say that I'm right on a point or two. It still remains to be seen that your vision of regional networks is anything but these 6 states.

Fine, let's add Idaho, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico to your so called contiguous geographic area, throw in the 2 Utah fans living in Wyoming and you have locked up a 'huge' area of the US that no one lives in. There's your 'regional' networks and I'm willing to bet that you are still wrong.

You are grasping for straws to think that there's a sizable fanbase out there somewhere outside of the six states.

And yes, I am so 'tortured' by all of this.

But again this story was about the NCTC deal, I've never refuted the 40 million CATV deal except for stating that it was going to be a subscription deal, similar to the Big 10 Network... and it still is. How many of those subscribers are in Pac country.

motorbike
Cottonwood Heights, UT

sammyg

"How many of those subscribers are in Pac country."

I guess you don't think many people live in the state of California. Add Vegas, Denver, Seattle, SLC, Phoenix, Portland, etc. A more direct answer to your question, A LOT of subscribers are in Pac country.

Arguments about what cable package the networks will be on, and for what regions of the country, etc, etc, are silly anyway. The brass tacks will be how many televisions ACTUALLY tuned into the games. Let's both take a look at the nielson ratings at the end of the season and see how BYUTV and BYU ESPN broadcasts stack up to the Utah games.

I'd wager that even if the PAC 12 doesn't get satellite figured out (which they probably will) that Utah games on the Pac 12 network will get higher ratings than any game on your beloved BYUTV on basic cable. The only viewers on BYUTV will be BYU fans and those who left the tv on following Little House on the Prairie.

Snack PAC
Olympus Cove, Utah

motordude

The National PAC 12 Network (available August 15th), WILL NOT be on any "basic cable packages" offered by Comcast, THE LARGEST cable company that has agreed to carry the PAC 12 Network.

Feel free to call Comcast and ask what tier of programming you have to subscribe to get the 12 Network - GUARANTEED it's not included with any their "basic" tier packages without paying extra for a Sports Package Upgrade.

Try doing a little basic research with the actual cable providers instead of wishfully believing everything you read on line.

sammyg
Springville, UT

Motorbike

You crack ME up.

"Arguments about what cable package the networks will be on, and for what regions of the country, etc, etc, are silly anyway. The brass tacks will be how many televisions ACTUALLY tuned into the games."

Why the sudden change of topic?

Well duh, it is silly because the regional networks will only be in the local regional states, all six of them. Glad you finally figured that out and now it appears that Comcast is going to treat the Pac Network like the Big 10 Network, a subscription service or a sports tier package, imagine that.

Let me know those Nielsen ratings for Wahoo Nebraska will ya?

motorbike
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Snack PAC -

Regarding: "Feel free to call Comcast and ask what tier of programming you have to subscribe to get the 12 Network - GUARANTEED it's not included with any their "basic" tier packages without paying extra for a Sports Package Upgrade."

Uhhhhm, called Comcast, unlike you who pretended you did. Got news for you ... Pac 12 Network and the Utah/Colorado regional channel will be included in the Digital Starter package which is Comcast's BASIC CABLE package.

So.... Snack PAC = FAIL!
______

Sammyg -

I guess that answers your question too (concerning changing topics on you). How pathetic. Obviously I wasn't changing topics deliberately as I already know what my cable situation is without talking to uninformed cougar fans such as yourself. Now what I WAS doing was getting to what truly does matter most ... eyeballs on TV sets. In regard to that, I'll stand behind my comment that Utah will have a lot more eyeballs on their games than BYU will have on theirs. I'll be happy to catch up with you throughout the season if you'd like to revisit this topic. Can't wait.

sammyg
Springville, UT

Motorbike

FAIL

How convenient to call 'basic' cable the new and improved 'digital starter' package and basic service as 'economy'.

Will the real 'basic package' please stand up?

P. T Barnum is alive and well.

"The numbers will be so small, Nielsen will be checking their equipment to see if it's still connected."

LOL

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments