Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Pac 12 network / direct tv (PACN now on fuboTV streaming)

Interesting read for anyone that still cares.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/11/30/In-Depth/Pac12.aspx

Sorry to disrupt the series of posts regarding whether or not we should (I) fire MM because dammit we are mad, (ii) hire Miles, (iii) recruit better players, or (iv) fire Neinas. I also apologize that this post does not predict what our uniforms will look like next year.
 
Buffs35 said:
Interesting read for anyone that still cares.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/11/30/In-Depth/Pac12.aspx

Sorry to disrupt the series of posts regarding whether or not we should (I) fire MM because dammit we are mad, (ii) hire Miles, (iii) recruit better players, or (iv) fire Neinas. I also apologize that this post does not predict what our uniforms will look like next year.
Click to expand...


Lots of interesting info, I like to highlight the one about the DirectTV negotiation that fell through

The two sides largely agreed on price and tier level, adding to the optimism conference officials felt. DirecTV, with close to 6 million subscribers in the Pac-12 footprint, conference sources said, would have brought a significant distribution boost to the channels.

But two deal points — not associated with the networks — proved too difficult to overcome and negotiations ended in September without a deal.

AT&T wanted a commitment that would allow it to wire every campus in the Pac-12 with its own video service, sources said. It was a way for AT&T to leverage DirecTV carriage.

The plan was similar to AT&T’s 2013 carriage deal between Pac-12 Networks and U-verse, which included a commitment to upgrade all of the Pac-12’s football stadiums and basketball arenas with wireless systems. As part of that 2013 arrangement, AT&T became the conference’s official wireless provider.

AT&T also asked for expanded rights around its wireless sponsorship as part of any DirecTV deal this year, sources said. It’s unclear what rights AT&T specifically wanted.

This time, AT&T’s request for additional campus rights proved to be a deal breaker for the Pac-12.

Scott went to the conference’s 12 university presidents with DirecTV’s proposal. They rejected it unanimously, in part because many of the state schools simply couldn’t surrender those rights without a formal bid process.
Click to expand...
 
Buffs35 said:
More of an opinion piece, but interesting nonetheless

http://www.thepostgame.com/road-sat...c-12-stanford-christian-mccaffrey-sec-big-ten
Click to expand...

That has some ugly stuff in it. Now that Dtv is out the window I think the P12, when current contracts run out, will find some better deals. It seems to me NBC could add us to try and compete with ABC and CBS on Saturdays. A deal like that gets us national coverage. But Ill bet the network would have to be sold in part to NBC to make it happen.
 
gobuffs58 said:
i think this hit the nail on the head....not being available on the biggest sports provider is just killing the pac 12....people can talk about switching providers all they want...only the few "die hard" pac fans will do this.....scott better wake up and partner with somebody
Click to expand...
I had my first experience with this DTV vs Pac 12 issue this season. Was out in downtown Golden a few weeks back with my girlfriend and there wasn't one bar along Washington street that was able to show the game on the Pac 12 network. I checked Ace High, Buffalo Rose, Blue Canyon, Woody's, Old Capital, and I think 2 others and they all had DTV. Shortly after, I moved into my new place and went the Dish Network route for TV. Absolutely ridiculous.
 
Saw an interesting article yesterday on the future of TV and unbundling. Everyone has been talking about when Apple is going to offer their streaming TV package and the shift in the delivery model...but apparently the TV companies are not ready to give up that sweet, sweet subscription fee revenue. Apple is apparently no longer negotiating with the networks for a subscription package because the networks won't allow them to put together the simplified $30 package of key channels (e.g. no Fox and Fox News without FX and FS1, no ABC and Disney without the ESPN smorgasbord). Also the TV industry is reluctant to hand the keys over to Apple give the destruction they wrought on the established music industry distributors. Apparently at this point Apple has given up on the negotiations for now, which is why the messaging for new Apple TV is "the future of TV is Apps"

Anyway from the sounds of it I don't think we're going to be seeing the P12 Network signing a separate distribution deal with Apple any time soon, Amazon may be the best bet for something like that at this point.
 
chipwich said:
"He boldly went after Texas and Oklahoma in the hopes of creating a super conference, but ended up with Colorado and Utah instead"

That's not how it happened but whatever.
Click to expand...

Yeah. He went after Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M... retreated to Colorado and Texas + any 2 Big 12 teams not named Baylor (or just Colorado and Texas)... and landed on Colorado and Utah. After that, he tried to push going to 14 through Oklahoma and Oklahoma State with the chancellors voting that down. But whatever.
 
At this point in time it looks like a mistake to build out their own network instead of partnering with one of the big players. A lot of investment of capital and limited revenue. Scott is going to be on the hot seat with the AD's if the trend continues on revenues from the Pac12 Network. I think the late games are also a problem with national exposure.
 
TSchekler said:
I had my first experience with this DTV vs Pac 12 issue this season. Was out in downtown Golden a few weeks back with my girlfriend and there wasn't one bar along Washington street that was able to show the game on the Pac 12 network. I checked Ace High, Buffalo Rose, Blue Canyon, Woody's, Old Capital, and I think 2 others and they all had DTV. Shortly after, I moved into my new place and went the Dish Network route for TV. Absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I was in Vegas, at a Sportsbook on the strip, and I couldn't get the CU vs. UMass game.
 
SuperD said:
Saw an interesting article yesterday on the future of TV and unbundling. Everyone has been talking about when Apple is going to offer their streaming TV package and the shift in the delivery model...but apparently the TV companies are not ready to give up that sweet, sweet subscription fee revenue. Apple is apparently no longer negotiating with the networks for a subscription package because the networks won't allow them to put together the simplified $30 package of key channels (e.g. no Fox and Fox News without FX and FS1, no ABC and Disney without the ESPN smorgasbord). Also the TV industry is reluctant to hand the keys over to Apple give the destruction they wrought on the established music industry distributors. Apparently at this point Apple has given up on the negotiations for now, which is why the messaging for new Apple TV is "the future of TV is Apps"

Anyway from the sounds of it I don't think we're going to be seeing the P12 Network signing a separate distribution deal with Apple any time soon, Amazon may be the best bet for something like that at this point.
Click to expand...

Apple should have bought Netflix five years ago when they had the chance. That said, there is nothing to stop them from eroding market share. Apple could become a content owner as well as a provider. The TV industry will survive on the bundle for the foreseeable future but it keep getting smaller and smaller.
 
The Pac-12 needs to embrace the future. More and more people are cutting the cord and going with streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, Sling TV). When their current deals with cable and satellite are up they need to give us the Pac-12 Network without a cable subscription. They could offer people a free Roku stick or discounted 4th gen Apple TV, Roku 3 or Roku 4 with a 2 year subscription. Sling TV is doing something like that. Suddenly they'd be available to any home or sports bar with an internet connection and they'd get to keep 100% of the subscription revenue.

Also, someone above talked about "signing a deal" with Apple. No need. With the new App Store on the new Apple TV, anyone can create an app just like they can for the iPhone.
 
Tatanka™ said:
The Pac-12 needs to embrace the future. More and more people are cutting the cord and going with streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, Sling TV). When their current deals with cable and satellite are up they need to give us the Pac-12 Network without a cable subscription. They could offer people a free Roku stick or discounted 4th gen Apple TV, Roku 3 or Roku 4 with a 2 year subscription. Sling TV is doing something like that. Suddenly they'd be available to any home or sports bar with an internet connection and they'd get to keep 100% of the subscription revenue.

Also, someone above talked about "signing a deal" with Apple. No need. With the new App Store on the new Apple TV, anyone can create an app just like they can for the iPhone.
Click to expand...

mmmmmmm. Not quite. The P12 Networks needs a significant network back bone to be able to stream to hundreds of thousands of subscribers. I believe Netflix uses Amazons cloud service and even then they occasionally have problems.

But you are correct that if they charge everyone $5 a month that would be their revenue.

Right now the other networks and schools are having a big pay day with the partnerships they have with the networks. They arranged their deals so as to be sure they were in a standard package so they'd get money from the house holds that never ever tune in. In fact most of us are sending $1 or $2 a month to those other conference networks. It remains to be seen how long $115 month TV is sustainable. The next generation is not signing up at all. And the ones that are here now are slowly dying off. The price is probably going to have to go down before those kids sign up. So subscriber fees may have to go down. Either way, the ship has sailed and the P12N is not likely, even if they sealed a deal today, to receive the fees in the amounts the other conferences are unless subscriptions start rising again.

Lets not forget that LS presented most of these deals as well as sought approval for them from the 12 school presidents.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
mmmmmmm. Not quite. The P12 Networks needs a significant network back bone to be able to stream to hundreds of thousands of subscribers. I believe Netflix uses Amazons cloud service and even then they occasionally have problems.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand backbone requirements. Until a career change recently I was a telecom engineer with expertise in both FTTH and DSL systems. Backbone was not what I was speaking of. I was making the point that providers no longer need to sign a deal with Apple to carry a channel as they had to with the old ATV. They just have to submit an app that meets App Store guidelines.

The obvious partner to handle streaming for such a venture would be MLB Advanced Media. They handle much more than just MLB.tv. HBO Now and WatchESPN are both powered by their tech.

HBO sees the value in bypassing the cable companies. And Showtime has partnered with Hulu to offer their content without cable. Others will follow, including sports networks. It's only a matter of time. Granted, HBO and Showtime have always been standalone premium services rather than a channel on basic cable or in a sports package, but I believe that sports networks will have an easier time than other types of channels when they move to selling direct to customers. Fans by the millions already buy tickets to watch their home teams play. Most who would pony up for that won't have a problem paying $8 or $15/month to see all the road games. (Obviously they'd have to do some market research to see where the sweet spot is.) There are millions of people like me who no longer see the value in a $80 or $100/month cable subscription. I'm fine with Netflix and Hulu and catching games at a bar or a friend's house. I would, however, happily pay to stream Pac-12 and Altitude if I could get them without cable. I have a hard time seeing how those numbers can't be made to work. They would reach far more potential customers and keep all subscription and advertising revenue.

The current business model of bundling channels that people don't want will die faster than most realize. Their business is in decline and the status quo is not sustainable. If cable companies don't adapt quickly and move to more of an a la carte model, they will lose to streaming. The Pac-12 Network should be a leader in this sea change, not a follower.
 
Tatanka™ said:
I have a hard time seeing how those numbers can't be made to work. They would reach far more potential customers and keep all subscription and advertising revenue.
Click to expand...

This is the sticking part imho. Right now every single cable/sat subscriber pays ESPN $5 a month and a decent chunk of them dont ever watch the channel. ESPN probably also charges premium priced ad rates too. But those rates have to be justified in part by strong ratings. If your ratings aren't there your rates tend to be lower to attract advertisers. Given this I have a hard time seeing how ESPN will maintain the status quo in terms of their PnL with streaming accounts because right out of the gate they lose all those non watchers that were paying.

Disney is a smart company. But will they force a bundle in the streaming offering? In order to get ESPN you also have to sign up for all their other channels?

The P12N on the other hand could be the first one to go to streaming ahead of these other college networks. And if they design an App for the AppleTV App store for them it could be found revenue. I think for them the problem is the contracts they are already into with Comcast among others who see streaming as a threat. And as well how deep this cord cutting phenomenon really goes.
 
Beyond ‘Star Wars,’ a Dark Force Looms for Disney: Cord-Cutting

In a report titled “Even the Force Cannot Protect ESPN,” he argues that Disney’s successful film business, which includes Pixar, has distracted investors from an impending slowdown at ESPN as viewers cancel their cable subscriptions (the “cord cutters”) or never sign up for cable to begin with (the “cord nevers”).

“Investors must remember that at its core, Disney is a cable network company that has the highest level of fixed costs (sports rights) in the industry,” he wrote. “ESPN now appears poised to become Disney’s most troubled business as consumer behavior shifts rapidly.”

Mr. Greenfield is especially worried about earnings in 2017 and beyond, when he believes the cord cutting may push Disney to pursue an à la carte subscription offering, given that 44 percent of the company’s profits currently come from cable television.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/b...a-dark-force-looms-large-unbundling.html?_r=0

I had no idea that Cable TV revenue was THAT significant in total revenue dollars. Wow.
 
Yeah...that article should give everyone an idea of just how far the Mouse has milked cable consumers for their sports programming. Its been a cash cow and a significant source of their operating profit over the last 10 - 15 years, and has also probably fueled a lot of cash for their large acquisitions like Marvel and Lucasfilm/Star Wars. FWIW I wouldn't be super confident the LHN network is going survive to the end of that 20 year deal, or even the next 5 years. Though my fear is that ESPN pushes Texas to the ACC as a result.
 
I took my kids to Disney World this past fall, and I am a dumbfounded at the percentage of profits that come from cable given the amount of money we spent and the number of other visitors that were there.
 
El Gringo said:
I took my kids to Disney World this past fall, and I am a dumbfounded at the percentage of profits that come from cable given the amount of money we spent and the number of other visitors that were there.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That place is ****ing silly expensive now. $100 per person per day. Then food. A family of four there for 5 days is out like $4000 with airfare, hotel, and tickets.
 
It was $100 per day 10 years ago. My kids were done after 1 day. They'd rather go to the beach or pool. I did not argue. Don't know why or how anyone could do 4 days of that!
 
buffaholic said:
It was $100 per day 10 years ago. My kids were done after 1 day. They'd rather go to the beach or pool. I did not argue. Don't know why or how anyone could do 4 days of that!
Click to expand...

Your lucky on that. We went as kids all the time growing up in Florida. I agree its nuts now. Back then we would go in the first or second week after school started so it wasn't mobbed. My Dad likes to take my kids.

Maybe Total Cost of Ownership was a hundred bucks per person 10 years ago. But the actual ticket price itself crossed above the $100 per person mark last February for the first time in the companies history.

Disney raises theme park ticket prices, again
by Aaron Smith @AaronSmithCNNFebruary 23, 2015: 1:53 PM ET
A one-day ticket to the Walt Disney World Resort's flagship theme park, the Magic Kingdom, now costs $105, up from $99. Prices had been jacked up by $4 just last year. The price of admission applies to anyone 10 years and older entering the Orlando-area theme park. Younger children, aged 3 to 9, pay $99 to enter the Magic Kingdom, compared to $94 last year.

They raised the premium annual pass from $750 to $1050 too.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Beyond ‘Star Wars,’ a Dark Force Looms for Disney: Cord-Cutting

In a report titled “Even the Force Cannot Protect ESPN,” he argues that Disney’s successful film business, which includes Pixar, has distracted investors from an impending slowdown at ESPN as viewers cancel their cable subscriptions (the “cord cutters”) or never sign up for cable to begin with (the “cord nevers”).

“Investors must remember that at its core, Disney is a cable network company that has the highest level of fixed costs (sports rights) in the industry,” he wrote. “ESPN now appears poised to become Disney’s most troubled business as consumer behavior shifts rapidly.”

Mr. Greenfield is especially worried about earnings in 2017 and beyond, when he believes the cord cutting may push Disney to pursue an à la carte subscription offering, given that 44 percent of the company’s profits currently come from cable television.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/b...a-dark-force-looms-large-unbundling.html?_r=0

I had no idea that Cable TV revenue was THAT significant in total revenue dollars. Wow.
Click to expand...

Here is what he is kind of missing. The way content is delivered is changing - but the key is still content and Disney has control of a lot of content. Even though people call it cord cutting they have just changed the cord. People suggesting the PAC12 network go direct are not understanding what is involved. Services like Hulu, Sling TV, are still bundling. Sling TV is offering the SEC network as part of their Sports extra package for $5 per month - I question why the PAC12 network is not part of that. Services like HBONOW are going through Amazon, Apple, Google, Roku and Verizon because there is the whole headache of billing and receiving money - takes a lot of infrastructure to do that.

How many people are going to pay $5 a month to watch the PAC12 network? Probably not enough to cover the overhead. I think Larry Scott is a smart guy but he missed the mark on the structure of the Pac 12 Network.
 
Bro, why do u want Altitude? They never show us anyway unless ur CSU. If ur a hockey fan, I get it but Idk why you'd wanna watch them either. Rocky Mountain, they never show us. Flagship University and Csu is on tv more than us. Rocky Mountain my ass, they'd kill u if you'll pulled that in Texas.
 
BuffLuKe said:
Bro, why do u want Altitude? They never show us anyway unless ur CSU. If ur a hockey fan, I get it but Idk why you'd wanna watch them either. Rocky Mountain, they never show us. Flagship University and Csu is on tv more than us. Rocky Mountain my ass, they'd kill u if you'll pulled that in Texas.
Click to expand...
Home of the Avs and Nuggets. Some people care about them.
 
BuffLuKe said:
Bro, why do u want Altitude? They never show us anyway unless ur CSU. If ur a hockey fan, I get it but Idk why you'd wanna watch them either. Rocky Mountain, they never show us. Flagship University and Csu is on tv more than us. Rocky Mountain my ass, they'd kill u if you'll pulled that in Texas.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your inane analysis on Altitude, home of two of Denver's professional sports teams.

I guarantee that CU must be on Pac-12 network, unless they are picked up by ESPN, per a contract with the conference. It has nothing to do with Altitude not wanting to run the buffs. They play MWC games because the MWC doesn't have a TV network. Also, the Avalanche are quite popular and the nuggets are mildly popular.

It certainly isnt that Kroenke and the people at altitude are sitting around saying "screw CU, lets put CSU and New Mexico basketball on TV a ton." If they could get rights to show the buffs, they would. As would root. They simply can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top