Real name isn't Nik
Then a few Pac-12 fans asked him some questions. His answers are informative.
Fundamentally, this is not a personnel & org chart problem. The vision is fatally flawed.Good first step. I look forward to them announcing the rest of the moves. If it's just cutting staff, it's a band-aid on a gaping wound
DTV isnt exactly a growth model either. Which is why they sold out to AT&T. Im saving at least $1000 a year not paying those pricks to not to carry the P12N. And Im getting the P12N from somewhere else a lot cheaper. DTV wants to bury P12N on some sports tier that few people buy. The P12N doesnt want that because it doesnt solve their problem. Hence the stalemate.Disconcerting as a DirecTV customer.
I think this is right.I tend to believe that the only thing that gives hope for revenue parity is the 100% ownership. PACN only has to earn half as much to deliver as much. But the right businesspeople & business model have to be carrying the day.
Yeah. And it's not like owning its own network precludes expansion of its Tier 1 package that it sells to ESPN & FOXSports (or another bidder).I think this is right.
With the multitude of new distribution models coming on-line the days of the traditional cable/satellite model may be numbered. Customers will no longer be able to be forced to pay for a 200+ channel package with a bunch of things they don't watch to get a few specific channels they do.
ESPN with to the extent of their power fight this because they stand to lose a lot. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they try to hold some of their specialty properties like conference networks under their control hostage to delay this transition.
PAC12 has some serious issues to deal with but they do have a lot of added flexibility they can use to do so down the road.
This is true.I tend to believe that the only thing that gives hope for revenue parity is the 100% ownership. PACN only has to earn half as much to deliver as much. But the right businesspeople & business model have to be carrying the day.
I have to think that after the contracts are up they'd be looking at some direct streaming deals of some kind. Satellite and its limitations are passé compared to unlimited streaming platforms. That gets you in the door at a lot of homes. Now, If they kept Tier 2 for themselves that would probably better drive ratings and advertising rev.Yeah. And it's not like owning its own network precludes expansion of its Tier 1 package that it sells to ESPN & FOXSports (or another bidder).
How quickly CU fans posting on innerwebs have gone from "Larry Scott is a genius and our new conference will leapfrog all others." to "Can we get rid of Larry yet?"Need to merge this thread with the "Would we go to the Big if invited" thread...because of the Pac12 network and larry scott - I would vote yes.
If Larry Scott was a genius, he wouldn't of had to settle for CU and Utah, he would have landed teams from Texas and Oklahoma.
I don't think Larry Scott is the problem.
Can you imagine how much more messed up it would be with UT in the conference and still having its own network? The fundamental plan may be flawed, but saying no to UT was the right move at the time.If Larry Scott was a genius, he wouldn't of had to settle for CU and Utah, he would have landed teams from Texas and Oklahoma.
And, BTW, I am forever grateful that we got the move.
The Pac-12 wouldn't have taken Texas with the longhorn network though and Scott was actually pretty damn close to landing them if the state legislature didn't get involved. Also, the Pac had the opportunity to add OU and OSU but the presidents said no.Can you imagine how much more messed up it would be with UT in the conference and still having its own network? The fundamental plan may be flawed, but saying no to UT was the right move at the time.
It is amusing. If it weren't for him we'd still be dealing with ****er and Longhorn trolls.
Im pretty sure selling direct to consumers violates the terms of their contract with Dish and the other content delivery providers. Dish and the others contract for this content in order to attract subscribers to their business.If the pac-12 owns all of its content I don’t see why they don’t make these channels their own subscription service? Why do they NEED DirecTV if they can sell a package to consumers who don’t want a TV package. I would pay $120 for a yearly package to stream any and all conference games. I can’t imagine I’m the only one who would be interested in that. I don’t pay for TV, I never have. Sometimes I do a free trial to catch an event or I pay for a month of sling to watch a few buffs games. But if I actually could pay and have the channel 24-7, I’d watch more content from it, as long as they don’t push local blackouts like MLB TV does. Either way, I don’t see why they can’t, maybe some of you have insight into why they can’t? Seems like a win win to me, you aren’t losing anything by having options.
I can buy that. Wonder how MLB does it, maybe that’s why they have the local blackout restrictions.Im pretty sure selling direct to consumers violates the terms of their contract with Dish and the other content delivery providers. Dish and the others contract for this content in order to attract subscribers to their business.
Those contracts deliver large sums of money with less overhead† for enterprise that are a cost to those providers before they pay us. Thus, all we do is produce and send them content and then we cash their checks and distribute to the schools.
† customer service agents, sales reps, ecommerce platforms, additional hardware infrastructure to support expanded streaming bandwith, marketing, advertising, etc.
A lot of assumptions made here which do not match reality.It is amusing. If it weren't for him we'd still be dealing with ****er and Longhorn trolls.
The Pac10 could have picked from a few choices within their current footprint and left us where we were if they swallowed their AAC requirements. They also could have taken 3 Texas schools and OU and left us and UU out. But they didnt. So be thankful you dont have dustbowl games anymore.
- Flash back to 2011 and we signed the most lucrative TV contract among all conferences after expansion.
- A contract is a contract wether we like it or not. And it runs thru 2022 so suck it up.
- The Pac12 Network was born.
- There was only one other dedicated Conference TV network, the Big 10 channel, created in 2006.
- B1G chose to partner with Fox. We chose 100% ownership rather than copy their model (mistake).
- The SEC network that ESPN controls wasnt created until 2014
- The ACC network that ESPN will control will launch in 2019
- What does the Big12 have? The Longhorn Network.
Now we have sour grapes just because we have to wait to get more money. And its all Larry's fault because he wont break a silly contract!
yeah, if Pac fans aren't willing to change providers in order to watch games from their alma maters, the league is in a bad place.The biggest miscalculation was on Pac-12 fans.
DTV and other carriers made a bet that Pac-12 fans would choose and value the entertainment packaged they liked and had comfort with over a Pac-12 Network. They weren't willing to pay any premium (i.e., offering on basic package and not charging customers more to offset) because they didn't think it would lose them business. They were right.
If they'd pulled that with ACC, SEC, B1G or Big 12 fans, DISH would have had record switches.
Scott must work within that reality.
Lack of foresight? He brought about the creation of the 2nd conference TV Network. You disagree with the dates? You dispute the existence of major conference based networks? Caused I looked them and there start dates all up.A lot of assumptions made here which do not match reality.
Who does Larry Scott work for? Who previously invited CU to the PAC 10? But somehow Larry Scott and only Larry Scott is responsible for CU being in the Pac-12? Good one.
Your whole list of bullet points is supposed to absolve Scott because of the timing, but it actually just highlights the lack of foresight.