Yellow Shirt
Club Member
I am continually baffled by the Larry Scott apologists.
No. When I canceled they didn't offer. They only wanted to make sure I knew about the exciting SEC network.
A lot of the posters on this site called to complain and then bragged about getting free NFL Sunday. If those posters and others in the Pac-12 footprints actually cancelled maybe everyone would have PAC-12 by now.
I don't really care. I get Pac-12 network and super fast internet. **** Direct TV.
I am continually baffled by the Larry Scott apologists.
I am continually baffled by the DTV obsession.
Look, DTV wanted to offer PAC12 less than the other conference networks. If Larry bends over like you want him to, it devalues our product and lets everyone know that we are a bargain. If people don't change over from DTV then that tells you there is not as much interest as we thought outside of our footprint. Which means the focus is to keep improving the conference. And guess what? It starts with CU and Cal. The quality of the conference play needs to increase interest outside of the footprint. Then, we have more negotiating power. I know many here are in love with DTV. However, the TV market is about to shift to online streaming. I am more interested in Scott making a deal with a certain computer company in the California bay area. Also with AT&T buying DTV, things will change too. Larry is looking at the future, not falling prey to a cr@ppy satellite provider.
Of course the PAC needs to be on DirecTV. Scott shares blame in not getting a deal done. But at what cost? At half the price every other MSO has already been paying? At setting precedent and allowing the PAC N to be a la carte? Neither option is acceptable. Yes, cancelling service over the last two years would have had an effect if enough people did it. DirecTV's stance has been PAC fans don't give enough a rip and you simply prove their point. They don't have the incentive to carry the network if they aren't losing any business.
Curious. What would you have the PAC do? Accept a deal with DirecTV and take in less gross revenue than they are now? Accept a deal with DirecTV and set precedence on RSN's be a la carte?
If the PAC took a misstep -- its Colorado, Utah, Cal and the others in the bottom half not moving the needle for DirecTV to see the value?
I am hoping that eventually a deal is done to reach everyone.
Of course the PAC needs to be on DirecTV. Scott shares blame in not getting a deal done. But at what cost? At half the price every other MSO has already been paying? At setting precedent and allowing the PAC N to be a la carte? Neither option is acceptable. Yes, cancelling service over the last two years would have had an effect if enough people did it. DirecTV's stance has been PAC fans don't give enough a rip and you simply prove their point.They don't have the incentive to carry the network if they aren't losing any business.I've proved their point by canceling my service?They did lose my business.
Curious. What would you have the PAC do? Accept a deal with DirecTV and take in less gross revenue than they are now? Accept a deal with DirecTV and set precedence on RSN's be a la carte?In all of my limited responses to this debate, I have never attempted to have enough industry knowledge to offer up tactics. The only point I have ever hoped to get across is that if it was Scott's goal to get the PAC on DTV, he failed. Unfortunately, if DTV says the PAC is overvalued, then it is, because he over valued the network as it relates to DTV. I would like that not to be the case. I am in full support of Scott making the most possible money for the conference by all of the tools listed above.
If the PAC took a misstep -- its Colorado, Utah, Cal and the others in the bottom half not moving the needle for DirecTV to see the value?
It's all ITB's fault.
I missed you had cancelled and fair enough to the rest YellowShirt. If other's weren't paying the carriage fee and it weren't already the lowest priced conference network, I would be more inclined to blame the PAC vs. DirecTV. But as it is, most my blame and anger is directed at the 'Sports Leader'....
I'm under contract. I'm done with them this time next year if no Pac12.
Meh, if your contact expires in December, your buyout is probably only like $50-$100. You'll save that in your first couple months with another carrier. Take one for the team!!
I read enough posts on this forum conceding the SEC is clearly the best. From people who have access to all PAC-12 games. How does that change?
I read enough posts on this forum conceding the SEC is clearly the best. From people who have access to all PAC-12 games. How does that change?
I have been told more than once the SEC is clearly superior. Not all exposure driven. People love to buy into the SEC hype. Self-fulfilling prophecy. More exposure for the PAC-12 will not change that issue. The conference has no idea how to market football.
The Pac-12 needs to lower its demands and get their network on DTV, period. Otherwise conference exposure, national respect, and most importantly the fans will continue to suffer. It's past time for the alleged genius to get off his high horse and get this deal done.