Quantcast
Sports

Pac-12 working to get satellite, telco deals

Comments

Return To Article
  • WACPaddingOurSchedule pocatello, ID
    Aug. 13, 2012 7:41 p.m.

    Snack PAC
    Olympus Cove, Utah
    upinthenight

    zing???

    Nice try, but NOBODY on BYU's schedule even comes close to the ineptitude of #209 Northern Colorado(0-11).

    At least BYU doesn't lose to the season-ending creampuffs on its schedule.

    *zing*

    ______________

    You mean the same Colorado that BYU is 3-8-1 all time against!

    If I were you and other BYU pals, I would pay attention to this years schedule. You play on the road at San Jose St. You know, the team that OWNS BYU 9-6 all time. How are your going to feel if you lose that game on national TV? Or on the road at New Mexico St? Who came up with the bright idea of signing that contract? A legacy program that plays teams like that on the road? The only legacy that exists is in the minds of BYU fans.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Aug. 13, 2012 6:09 p.m.

    Mercury News... 8/13 4:21 Pacific... Jon Wilner blog... This just in...

    Spoiler alert... if you have Dishnetwork... grab a Kleenex... and get DirectTV on speed dial

    "At this point, the Pac-12 Networks don't have carriage agreements with either of the major satellite operators, DirecTV or Dish Network. But negotiations are ongoing and commissioner Larry Scott is optimistic a deal will be struck with at least one of the satellite carriers.

    Media industry sources believe DirecTV, with its reliance on sports programming, is far more likely than Dish to come to terms."

  • Snack PAC Olympus Cove, Utah
    Aug. 13, 2012 5:58 p.m.

    upinthenight

    zing???

    Nice try, but NOBODY on BYU's schedule even comes close to the ineptitude of #209 Northern Colorado(0-11).

    At least BYU doesn't lose to the season-ending creampuffs on its schedule.

    *zing*

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Aug. 13, 2012 5:51 p.m.

    Nightfouled

    Yeah, chuckle all you want, as Mr. Holmoe promised and has delivered, it's Wisconsin and Notre Dame in November 2013 and who knows who else will be on the schedule. It's getting great.

    But sadly, several of your Ute buddies across the nation are not going to be watching their team on the 'national' PAC 12 Network and if they have satellite they might be watching Leave It To Beaver instead.

    The upside as I mentioned before might be if you get walloped by Colorado again, maybe a few less people will notice.

  • NightOwlAmerica SALEM, OR
    Aug. 13, 2012 3:09 p.m.

    scott said"

    Just imagining the breathless anticipation of PAC 12 fans awaiting the launch of their brand new conference network, rushing home from work to catch the 4:30 weekday afternoon kickoff of the inaugural game...

    and being treated to a scrimmage between Utah and Northern Colorado.

    *ouch*"

    Scrimmage indeed. Just imagine the breathless anticipation of PAC 12 fans watching the WAC teams on TV! Bet the ESPN executives will be glued to their seats for those ratings. Those last three games are going to be great! What a way to complete the season.

    *zing*

  • NightOwlAmerica SALEM, OR
    Aug. 13, 2012 3:02 p.m.

    phoenix said:

    ""Hank Pym

    "Could it be the P12 is doing the right way? Building a solid distribution outlet for known & proven commodity one step at a time."

    No, it looks more like the PAC grossly overestimated the demand for their product and now they're being forced to admit that they over-promised, but under-delivered.

    Seriously, how many fans outside the PAC footprint are going to be interested in paying a subscription fee to watch Utah play Washington State?""

    I will as a person with WSU ties. The network has not even launched yet and you know everything about it. Gee thank you. You are such an expert. Yawn.

  • TroyTown Anaheim, CA
    Aug. 13, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    phoenix

    Rushing home from work to catch a 4:30 kickoff in LA? Are you kidding?

    Even for a devoted Utah fan, it would be nearly impossible to catch the game before the end of the 2nd quarter without taking the day or at least the afternoon off from work.

    It's obvious that the Utah - Northern Colorado game is just being used as a trial run to work out the kinks before they have to televise a real football game.

  • phoenix Gilbert, AZ
    Aug. 13, 2012 12:43 p.m.

    Hank Pym

    "Could it be the P12 is doing the right way? Building a solid distribution outlet for known & proven commodity one step at a time."

    No, it looks more like the PAC grossly overestimated the demand for their product and now they're being forced to admit that they over-promised, but under-delivered.

    Seriously, how many fans outside the PAC footprint are going to be interested in paying a subscription fee to watch Utah play Washington State?

  • scott Alpine, UT
    Aug. 13, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    Just imagining the breathless anticipation of PAC 12 fans awaiting the launch of their brand new conference network, rushing home from work to catch the 4:30 weekday afternoon kickoff of the inaugural game...

    and being treated to a scrimmage between Utah and Northern Colorado.

    *ouch*

  • Truth Machine Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2012 10:59 a.m.

    Kosta Fesenko

    "my athletic department is profitable! and yours isn't!

    does it get any more pathetic?"

    Only for Utah fans who have been beating their chests about the gobs of money the Utes were making, now having to sugar-coat defeat in which athletic program is more profitable.

  • LonestarRunner Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2012 8:25 a.m.

    No conference championships for U

    I don't understand why a Utah fan is so embarrassed to be associated with the Utes that he continues to pretend that he's a BYU fan.

    BYUtv is far more relevant to it's intended audience, BYU fans, than the PAC Net is to Utah. BYU owns and controls what is televised on BYUtv. The PAC Net is controlled by the PAC 12 and has no vested interest in catering to Utah fans.

    BYU fans are simply pointing out to our delusional brothers on the hill that the PAC Net is going to fall far short of what was initially promised when it was announced. Thousands of Utah fans who were expecting to be able to tune in to the PAC Net and to find it available on their basic cable or satelite systems are going to be bitterly disappointed. To argue otherwise is simply to ignore the facts.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Aug. 12, 2012 6:34 p.m.

    @uteology

    If you'll go back and read what I posted you'll see I am way ahead of you. I already asked for those numbers, how many ACTUAL homes was/is each network available in. Regardless neither comes anywhere close to how many homes BYUtv is ACTUALLY in, there isn't any of this "well the carrier has it but they don't actually put it on their system" stuff. No the carriers have it and it is actually in all of those homes in all of those markets.

    Yea I know what utah "fans" assert about it "no one will watch it" but why do any of you think anyone will watch womens tennis on the pac12 network even if it is actually available to watch which it is becoming pretty apparent that it isn't in most places. For that matter why would anyone that isn't a fan of utah or oregon st. watch a football game between the 2 of them? No one will unless there is absolutely nothing else on at the time.

    Basicly utah "fans" are getting what BYU fans already have but on a much smaller scale with less availability. Congratulations?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 12, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    Alls I now is they dont' even have a HD truck like us haha.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 12, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    @Ducky

    My bad, I misspoke. The 30 and 48 million was referring to the article I quoted, and it clearly said it was "agreements with distributors" of 30 vs 48 million, not in homes.

    So I think I was clear that "the PAC-12 network has a BIGGER footprint than what the BIG 10 had when they launched in 2007 by 18 million."

    Unless you can provide actual numbers that:

    A) The BIG 10 was available in 30 million homes (or total subscriptions)
    B) The PAC-12 will be available in less than 30 million homes (or total subscriptions)

    My point stands PAC-12 "could" have more subscriptions than the Big 10 network launch based on the 30 million vs 48 million "agreements with distributors".

  • Kosta Fesenko Chicken McNuggetville, UT
    Aug. 12, 2012 11:34 a.m.

    Duckhunters little comments have grown more cute as time has gone on. Now he is on a "my athletic department is profitable! and yours isn't!'

    does it get any more pathetic?

    LOL!

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Aug. 12, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    @uteology

    No, you said the pac12 network "IS available in 18 million more homes" when that is not true. It IS NOT available in even 48 million homes, that is reported fact.

    Nice spin, fail.

  • No Conference Will Take Us SEATTLE, WA
    Aug. 12, 2012 9:32 a.m.

    Don't understand fellow BYU fans obsession with the PAC 12 network. Especially exposure. We can't even get decent ratings playing on ESPN. IF that is going to work for us. We are going to rely on BYU scheduling better games, and rely on the fan base of opponents to bring the ratings up. WAC teams don't cut it for us.

    And fellow BYU fans are kidding themselves if they think BYU TV is relevant. Nobody outside of BYU faithful watches that. Yet how many homes is that available in, and have to pay extra for the digital package? In addition ESPN is not free.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 12, 2012 12:05 a.m.

    @Ducky: "It actually may be in far less if all 30 million big10 homes were actually given the channel by the providers that had it."

    -------------

    Oh Duckster try reading what I posted, not what you think I posted.

    According to the article sammy quoted you are wrong. Let me explain:

    The Pac12Nets currently have "agreements with distributors" that reach 48 million homes. ...But by comparison, the Big Ten Network had "agreements with distributors" reaching approx 30 million homes when it launched in 2007.

    Conclusion, PAC-12 has 48 million "agreements with distributors" and Big Ten had 30 million "agreement with distributors" when each launched.

    Unless you have the actual subscriptions for each one can easily argue that because PAC-12 has a bigger FOOTPRINT the PAC-12 "could" have more subscribers.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 8:05 p.m.

    Uteology

    I don't care about the money, I don't care about your comparison to the Big 10 Net and I cannot quote a whole dang article by Jon Wilner. I've left nothing out intentionally to skew a position. I posted the source. Facts are what they are.

    The point being is that the PAC 12 Net is not what it was originally said it was going to be. It might evolve to something more but it is going to fall short of what it was hyped to be.

    48 million households available, not all will be partaking in PAC 12 Network. Hey, I added a potential 24 million more households from the NCTC deal in July. I talked with them directly.

    "Ballpark, we have 24 million subscribers among our 900+ member companies. Please let me know if you have any further questions." -- Hilary Hutton NCTC Membership Affairs Coordinator

    ... but again the cable provider decides IF they distribute or not.

    Massage the numbers all you want.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 7:33 p.m.

    Could it be the P12 is doing the right way? Building a solid distribution outlet for known & proven commodity one step at a time.

    The alternative is jumping through hoops for 30 pieces of silver. Who would need instant validation/gratification that bad?

  • Jealous U Alpine, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 5:32 p.m.

    The "nationwide" PAC 12 network pipe dream is proving to be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    Duckhunter, no, sir I did not know that, I hadn't read that article, but thank you for directing me to it. As for "passive/aggressive doubt casting," sure, call it what you will, but your assumptions of my intentions are where you failed, not I. I simply asked for a source, you gave me one, so I succeeded.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 3:36 p.m.

    Oh and uteology do you even read what you post?

    "The Pac12Nets currently have agreements with distributors that reach 48 million homes. To be clear, that’s different than the Pac12Nets being in 48 million homes."

    Let me explain what this says. Despite having agreements with distributors that reach 48 million homes those distributors ARE NOT making the channel available to all 48 million homes. I would like to know what the actual number is that it is really available in? Obviously many of the distributors hold the rights to the pac12 networks but are only going to make them available to a limited number of their subscribers, not ALL of their subscribers and that limited number is mainly just in pac12 cities.

    You then wrote

    "One can assume that by being in 18 million more homes that the PAC-12 network could have more subscribers than BIG 10"

    Actually "one CANNOT assume" that. To the contrary the pac12 channel is not "in 18 million more homes" than the big10 channel. It actually may be in far less if all 30 million big10 homes were actually given the channel by the providers that had it.

    Small details are killers.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 3:28 p.m.

    @uteology

    There are enough pac12 fans to warrant the tv contract I presume or else it wouldn't have been awarded. But outside of pac12 area's almost no one cares about the pac12. I know utah "fans" like to beat their chests and proclaim some sort of immediate relevence occured to the utah program by joining the pac12 but on a national acale not much changed for them. Most people still don't care and most people still won't watch them unless they are playing usc and that is only because people want to watch usc.

    It is becoming increasingly obvious that the pac12 network of stations will never be more than a pac12 region anomally, hardly national, and that is because most people don't care.

    utah "fans" have spent the last couple of years denigrating BYUtv but the truth is it is quite a bit more widely distributed than the pac12 network will probably ever be and the thing they share in common is that outside of the fans of the schools playing on each channel almost no one else will watch.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 2:30 p.m.

    Stg

    Jon Wilner, Mercury News blogger 8/10

    "The football breakdown: 22 games on the ESPN networks, 22 games on the Fox networks and 35 games on the Pac-12 Networks."

    Not sure how this will play out, it will be interesting to see who gets on Fox and ESPN and who doesn't.

    As for the remaining 35 games on the PAC 12 Net, it's not going nearly as far beyond the regions as originally hoped for. As I mentioned previously Cox Cable has backed out. Little to no coverage on their system outside of the PAC 12 footprint. That's a sizable chunk of viewers removed.

    But let's be realistic, who outside of the regions is really a PAC fan, let alone a Ute fan? Millions? Don't think so.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 11, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    @Duck

    If no one cares about PAC-12 then please explain why ESPN and FOX paid about $3 billion for broadcast rights.

    Sounds to me it's a waste of money if no one cares. Maybe sammy can tell us why since he's been in the telecommunication industry for 35 years.

    @sammy

    You left out the entire quote from the article:

    "The Pac12Nets currently have agreements with distributors that reach 48 million homes. To be clear, that’s different than the Pac12Nets being in 48 million homes. (But by comparison, the Big Ten Network had agreements with distributors reaching approx 30 million homes when it launched in 2007.) ... The football breakdown: 22 games on the ESPN networks, 22 games on the Fox networks and 35 games on the Pac-12 Networks."

    Conclusion, the PAC-12 network has a BIGGER footprint than what the BIG 10 had when they launched in 2007 by 18 million. One can assume that by being in 18 million more homes that the PAC-12 network could have more subscribers than BIG 10. So one can argue that people care more about PAC-12 than BIG 10 when it first launched.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 1:02 p.m.

    @stg

    If you simply google BYU athletic department budget you will find a 2 part article published in the Deseret News from February of 2011. BYU released the information to the Dnews for the article stating they run a surplus of 5.5 million dollars in their athletic department of income over expenses. The name of the article is

    "BYU sports budget rundown shows what sports profit, cost"

    You may also find one stating utah runs a deficit although that is just as easily verified on the state of Utah site.

    Of course this has been stated and well documented on these boards many, many, times. You know that. Nice try at your passive/aggressive attempt to cast doubt on what I posted, but you failed.

  • royalblue Alpine, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    Duckhunter: "BYU runs a surplus in their athletic department"

    StGtoSLC: "Where could you direct one looking to verify this?"

    It's common knowledge that BYU athletics are required to run in the black.

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 11, 2012 12:52 p.m.

    @sammyg: "Not too many Utes commenting on these PAC 12 Network stories. Wonder why?"

    Because we're not worried about "exposure". PAC-12 signed a $2-3 billion contract with FOX and ESPN, the PAC-12 network is just a bonus. We'll be just fine thank you.

    @Duckhunter: "BYU runs a surplus in their athletic department, utah runs a deficit and has to be subsidized by the students and other university funds."

    Yes BYU did have a surplus in 2011 and athletic department revenues mainly come from ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, TV/radio broadcasting contracts and donations, according Deseret News.

    Note the word "donations". How much? No idea because the article did not say.

    As far as Utah all I could find was from LA Times:

    Other schools that relied heavily on allocated revenues in 2010 included Oregon State ($11 million), Arizona State ($10.3 million) and Pac-12 newcomers Utah ($8.6 million) and Colorado ($7.3 million)... On most Pac-12 campuses, athletic spending falls in line with a national average that sees universities devoting 3% to 4% of their total budget to sports.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    Elk Hair Caddis: "The top three teams USC,Stanford and Oregon will be on TV a whopping 5 times. Whoopee. "

    False. They will be on the Pac-12 Networks 5 times each, in addition to the other networks airing their games (i.e. ESPN, ABC, NBC, Fox).

    Duckhunter: "BYU runs a surplus in their athletic department"

    Where could you direct one looking to verify this? As a private school, BYU doesn't release that info.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 9:14 a.m.

    @wallbanger

    Yes I love how much sammyg and myself bother you, but the fact is you, and the other utah "fans" around here have it coming. Many of you have been spouting for the better part of 2 years about what this was going to be, how much better it is than anything BYU has going, and using it to try and claim some sort of superiority. Now it is obvious that none of that is the case. Yea there'll be more money but as far as that realtes to BYU it is meaningless. BYU runs a surplus in their athletic department, utah runs a deficit and has to be subsidized by the students and other university funds. What does it matter if "our tv deal makes more than your tv deal" when the truth is "our athletic department runs in the black and your athletic department runs in the red"?

    Then there is the inarguable fact that the pac12 network will not have the distribution claimed by utah "fans", not even close. It pprobably never will because most people don't care about the pac12, I know that hurts you but it is a fact, most dont care.

  • Elk Hair Caddis Sandy, UT
    Aug. 11, 2012 12:47 a.m.

    The top three teams USC,Stanford and Oregon will be on TV a whopping 5 times. Whoopee. But what about the rest of the teams that have coaches "like Pac 12 coaches" and have players "like PAC 12 players" and have recruits "like PAC 12 recruits" well whoopty doo for them to.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 11:40 p.m.

    Wallbanger

    My favorite fan. By the way telcom these days is a broad term. Guess what comes to your home thru that glass pipe or your cellphone? Guess what ties all this stuff together. And also, I'm not pretending anything, all of this information is very real and accurate.

    I'm happy that you don't have to change cable plans. For some, they won't be so lucky.

    "IF SFCN is launching it, why wouldn't Directv and Dish do the same?"

    Well why didn't Dishnet carry 'theMtn' when DirectTV did? My neighbor was ticked that he had to dump Dishnet to watch 'theMtn' on DirectTV.

    Contrary to your simplistic view of things, not every cable network (satellite provider?)is willing to pay and carry the network. Sure in the PAC 12 region it will be popular but elsewhere? Case in point, Cox Cable.

    These are just verifiable facts.

    Jon Wilner, Mercury News blogger 8/10

    "The Pac12Nets currently have agreements with distributors that reach 48 million homes. To be clear, that's different than the Pac12Nets being IN 48 million homes."

    "The Pac-12 won’t make public the number of subscriptions to its networks."

  • Wallbanger Spanish Fork, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 9:14 p.m.

    Sammy

    You said on another post that things are looking grim with the PAC 12 network, and you know because you've "been in telecommunications for 35 years." Kind of weird that you are that old and you post such negative things about the Utes all the time. You don't know what is going on behind closed doors because you are in telecomm. So stop pretending you do.

    Well, it doesn't benefit most people, but I got in touch with SFCN (Spanish Fork Community Network) today, and they are in fact launching The PAC 12 network soon. Things will be worked out, the network is expanding like they said it would and we'll be just fine. Ducky and sammyg need to stop jumping on every Ute story and spewing their negativity. That is why I RARELY post on BYU stories...because I don't care! IF SFCN is launching it, why wouldn't Directv and Dish do the same? Can't wait for the season to start, Go Utes!!

  • SoonerUte Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 7:38 p.m.

    sammyg wants a comment about PAC 12 Network stories.

    My provider will offer the PAC 12 Network. I'm set for the season. There is nothing to fuss about.

  • U 90 Corona, CA
    Aug. 10, 2012 5:32 p.m.

    sammy,

    Ute fans are probably not commenting because they haven't had a chance to read the article yet. They don't hang out by their computers all day long (and night) waiting for a news piece to break so they can be the first to make a comment and the sole purpose of their post is to hate and stir the pot. However, there actually are some people who do this.... imagine that.

    The reason I'm not worried is because the DNews already reported earlier this year that Utah's current TV deal with the PAC 12 will top out at $32MM by 2015. There are other football programs in the state of Utah who's current TV deal appears to be flat lined at about $8MM per year, but they do have a really neat HD truck.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Aug. 10, 2012 4:47 p.m.

    @sammyg

    "Not too many Utes commenting on these PAC 12 Network stories. Wonder why? LOL"

    Probably because we're all working because we all have jobs.

  • Conner Johnson
    Aug. 10, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    Please make a PAC-12 app for the XBOX 360!

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 4:22 p.m.

    Not too many Utes commenting on these PAC 12 Network stories. Wonder why? LOL

  • Mildred in Fillmore Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 4:03 p.m.

    Maybe they can borrow our HD truck.

  • Dand_Ute WEST JORDAN, UT
    Aug. 10, 2012 4:00 p.m.

    It might be more effective to go leave a message on Dish networks Facebook page. I did, my brother did, and they at least respond every time we do. But it may be a more visible way to put some pressure on Dish to get it done!!