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!!
Maybe they can borrow our HD truck.
Not too many Utes commenting on these PAC 12 Network stories. Wonder why? LOL
Please make a PAC-12 app for the XBOX 360!
@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.
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.
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
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!!
WallbangerMy 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."
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.
@wallbangerYes 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
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.
@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.
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
@stgIf 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.
@DuckIf 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.@sammyYou 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.
StgJon 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.
@uteologyThere 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.
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, 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
The "nationwide" PAC 12 network pipe dream is proving to be nothing but
smoke and mirrors.
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?
UteologyI 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.
@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.
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.
@uteologyNo, 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.
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!
@DuckyMy 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".
Alls I now is they dont' even have a HD truck like us haha.
@uteologyIf 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.
No conference championships for UI 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.
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
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*
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?
phoenixRushing 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 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.
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*
NightfouledYeah, 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.
upinthenightzing???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
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 PACOlympus Cove, Utahupinthenightzing???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.