(08-11-2023 05:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote: To my knowledge I have never watched a single minute of the PAC 12 Network.
But, I could have, it is sitting there on my cable listing, and has been for years, available for me to subscribe to if I wanted it.
I never wanted to subscribe to it, but it would have been easy to do so. And I live in Louisiana, far far from PAC country.
What was funny to me was that the Venn diagram of fans who either wanted to fire the coach or kill the refs after any loss and those that complained they “couldn’t get the P12N” was just about a perfect circle.
Some unifying psychological defect related to having no internal locus of control. I grew up in the Midwest as a BigTen fan. I love the UofU but I absolutely hate this entitled segment of P12 fans.
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2023 06:12 PM by jrj84105.)
(08-11-2023 10:44 AM)jrj84105 Wrote: The biggest lie in college football, and the single greatest contributor to the PAC’s demise was mostly spread by PAC fans.
“I can’t even get the PAC12 network”.
Was that true? No. It was a lie, as we’ll see below. And we can speculate as to why this lie was so prevalent especially on places like this sub.
Some key time points for expanding access to the PAC12 include:
Summer 2011 DISH.
August, 2014 YouTube International.
February 2015 Sling.
**DISH**
In the Summer of 2011, prior to the inaugural PAC12 kickoff, DISH was added as a PAC partner. This made the P12N available nationally. So what were the barriers to adoption for PAC fans?
1) Don’t have my own roof. Renters, apartment dwellers, and other people who literally could not place a dish on a roof did not have access.
2) NFL Sunday ticket. The only reason why DTV was a sticking point was that DTV was the home of NFL Sunday Ticket. Any PAC fan who chose DTV (and the choice was aided by the fact that if you called DTV to cancel and mentioned the P12N they would offer you free Sunday Ticket) obviously had a roof and the opportunity to get DISH. Although this segment of NFL-first fans had the opportunity to get DISH and P12N, they seem almost universally to have made the false claim/lie that “I can’t even get the P12N”. This lie served the purpose of protecting their egos as fans, because to say that I chose not to get the P12N would accurately characterize this segment as fair-weather fans.
**YouTube International**
The PAC12 network became available on YouTube International for $10 month. In August 2014. As an a la carte option this was the dream of early adopter cord-cutters. All that stood in their path was a $10 subscription and a VPN to spoof their location. I think a lot of early core-cutters had the VPN issue solved. So why didn’t they do this? Likely lack of awareness. Any positive mention of P12N access on any forum, including this one, was completely drowned out be the DTV-subscribing “I can’t get the P12N” fans noted above.
**Sling**
For people without roofs, Sling became an option in February 2015. For the 98% of American households with broadband Internet access, getting the PAC12N was a few mouse clicks away.
Now for 98% of the population “I can’t get the P12N” was an outright lie. So why is this narrative so pervasive on r/CFB?
Because P12 fans suck. Not because they didn’t pay for a service that might make them chose against another interest like the NFL. But because overwhelmingly people who made this choice outright will lied about it to cover the fact that they are fair-weather fans. And in doing so they completely undermined the financial viability of the conference by destroying its public perception and creating a barrier of misinformation that kept potential new subscribers and revenue from being realized by the conference.
It was because their cable carrier didn't carry it and they didn't care enough to switch to one that did. LHN had a lot better distribution than P12N, let alone BTN, SECN and ACCN.
LHN had ESPN leveraging the network into forced bundles.
Pac-12 cuts a deal with Fox, ESPN, Comcast/NBC, CBS, they get in more homes.
(08-11-2023 05:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote: To my knowledge I have never watched a single minute of the PAC 12 Network.
But, I could have, it is sitting there on my cable listing, and has been for years, available for me to subscribe to if I wanted it.
I never wanted to subscribe to it, but it would have been easy to do so. And I live in Louisiana, far far from PAC country.
Any time A-State had a game at a Pac-12 that I wanted to see, I'd get a 7 day trial subscription to a streaming cable service that offered Pac-12 Network a few days before the game and I'd cancel it after the game. No switching services, no cost.
(08-11-2023 10:44 AM)jrj84105 Wrote: The biggest lie in college football, and the single greatest contributor to the PAC’s demise was mostly spread by PAC fans.
“I can’t even get the PAC12 network”.
Was that true? No. It was a lie, as we’ll see below. And we can speculate as to why this lie was so prevalent especially on places like this sub.
Some key time points for expanding access to the PAC12 include:
Summer 2011 DISH.
August, 2014 YouTube International.
February 2015 Sling.
**DISH**
In the Summer of 2011, prior to the inaugural PAC12 kickoff, DISH was added as a PAC partner. This made the P12N available nationally. So what were the barriers to adoption for PAC fans?
1) Don’t have my own roof. Renters, apartment dwellers, and other people who literally could not place a dish on a roof did not have access.
2) NFL Sunday ticket. The only reason why DTV was a sticking point was that DTV was the home of NFL Sunday Ticket. Any PAC fan who chose DTV (and the choice was aided by the fact that if you called DTV to cancel and mentioned the P12N they would offer you free Sunday Ticket) obviously had a roof and the opportunity to get DISH. Although this segment of NFL-first fans had the opportunity to get DISH and P12N, they seem almost universally to have made the false claim/lie that “I can’t even get the P12N”. This lie served the purpose of protecting their egos as fans, because to say that I chose not to get the P12N would accurately characterize this segment as fair-weather fans.
**YouTube International**
The PAC12 network became available on YouTube International for $10 month. In August 2014. As an a la carte option this was the dream of early adopter cord-cutters. All that stood in their path was a $10 subscription and a VPN to spoof their location. I think a lot of early core-cutters had the VPN issue solved. So why didn’t they do this? Likely lack of awareness. Any positive mention of P12N access on any forum, including this one, was completely drowned out be the DTV-subscribing “I can’t get the P12N” fans noted above.
**Sling**
For people without roofs, Sling became an option in February 2015. For the 98% of American households with broadband Internet access, getting the PAC12N was a few mouse clicks away.
Now for 98% of the population “I can’t get the P12N” was an outright lie. So why is this narrative so pervasive on r/CFB?
Because P12 fans suck. Not because they didn’t pay for a service that might make them chose against another interest like the NFL. But because overwhelmingly people who made this choice outright will lied about it to cover the fact that they are fair-weather fans. And in doing so they completely undermined the financial viability of the conference by destroying its public perception and creating a barrier of misinformation that kept potential new subscribers and revenue from being realized by the conference.
It was because their cable carrier didn't carry it and they didn't care enough to switch to one that did. LHN had a lot better distribution than P12N, let alone BTN, SECN and ACCN.
I have Comcast and get BTN, SECN, and ACCN. Never got LHN or PACN. I'd likely have watched PACN; I wouldn't have watched LHN.
(08-11-2023 06:53 PM)jrj84105 Wrote: Amazing how fans of a school that play on P12N once in a blue moon can get the network, but not PAC fans.
So many are completely devoted to this narrative that they couldn’t get it and will take great offense if you call them out.
If I were in that boat I'd have changed providers. I mean the free trial thing won't cut it for hoops and football season combined.
Minute ESPN+ rolled out with a guarantee that every conference road game in football and basketball not on linear TV would be on ESPN+, I said here is my money.
I used to watch some MLS on the service, I do watch some NHL on the service but I'm there because I want to see my team.
That's the heart of the Pac-12 problem. The number of people who are interested enough to tune in to games that are on linear TV and the number of people willing to take additional measures whether it be change TV provider or subscribe to get games.
The schools with the most people with that sort of interest are going to be in Big 10.
(08-11-2023 10:44 AM)jrj84105 Wrote: The biggest lie in college football, and the single greatest contributor to the PAC’s demise was mostly spread by PAC fans.
“I can’t even get the PAC12 network”.
Was that true? No. It was a lie, as we’ll see below. And we can speculate as to why this lie was so prevalent especially on places like this sub.
It was true. I have Charter Spectrum and they did not make the Pac-12 network available until September of 2017. That was after Charter's purchase of Time Warner Cable went through in the summer of 2017. Time Warner Cable had an agreement with the Pac-12 Network. I could not go to any sports bars in the area to watch a Pac-12 game because they all had DIRECTV.
I missed the first five seasons of the Pac-12 network. But the Big Ten Network and the SEC Network were available on Charter Spectrum. It was common to go to a sports bar or stay in a hotel room without access to the Pac-12 Network. It was not a big lie.
You talk like having Charter/Spectrum was a terminal illness outside your control. Were you locked into a 5-year contract where they’d repossess your home if you changed providers?
Be real. It wasn’t that you couldn’t get the PACN. You could, but instead you opted to remain with a provider that didn’t offer the P12N.
What you and so many PAC fans did was to use your money to pay a provider to not carry the P12N. That’s on you not Larry Scott. And now you’re acting like you had no agency in the matter which is some serious BS self-delusion and very common among PAC fans.
When my home was being built in 2005, I had it prewired for cable TV. Charter/Spectrum is the cable provider for the area that I live in. I am not going to switch providers just for the Pac-12 Network. Since I live in Southern California, it made more sense for the provider to add the Pac-12 Network in order for fans of UCLA and USC to watch their local teams.
Spectrum SportsNet LA was the exclusive home for Dodger and Laker home games. If I changed providers, I lost access to the Dodger and Laker home games. I was happy with Spectrum, the sports coverage was good, and I felt no need to change. I was also willing to go to my local sports bar to watch the game, but they did not carry Pac-12 Network games, either. They still don't. Sports bars in Southern California had the SEC Network games and the Big Ten Network games, but not the Pac-12 Network games. That is what happens when you don't have a deal with DIRECTV. That made absolutely no sense. That was on Larry Scott.
I don't get your attempt to revise history on this subject. The distribution of the Pac-12 Network was a mess. That is a well-known fact. Spectrum eventually added the Pac-12 Network in 2017, and it is a non-issue for me today. I just missed the first 5 seasons of the network. But it was ridiculous to think that I should have shopped around for a new provider just for the PAC12N and what happens if a new provider decides to drop the PAC12N?
(08-11-2023 12:18 PM)jrj84105 Wrote: The P12N trying to go alone was a huge mistake during the era when cable /satellite bundles were king and were printing money.
(08-11-2023 06:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote: LHN had ESPN leveraging the network into forced bundles.
Pac-12 cuts a deal with Fox, ESPN, Comcast/NBC, CBS, they get in more homes.
THIS. But tons of people don't really go into the nuts and bolts of carriage fees and cable service tiers, so it gets "reduced" in like a game of telephone:
Not enough cable services are carrying P12N in the basic/non-premium tiers --- >>> Carriage issue --->>> No one can get it.
It's not a "lie" but more of "an extremely remedial answer."
The MYTH is that the ratio of fans who CARE about Pac-12 sports vs the Big Ten & SEC is what made the Pac-12 so much less lucrative than BTN and SECN. The reality is BTN/SECN are raking in far more money from people just had those networks appear in their cable plans.
The Pac-12 made a lot less money because in order to get paid for their network, FANS had to go sign up to get Pac-12 by paying more money, while people didn't have to ASK for SEC/BTN, they just started paying for it by doing NOTHING.
And, BTW, Pac-12 fans signing up for a premium sports tier would ALSO pay OTHER CONFERENCES in the places where SECN/BTN weren't on the basic/non-premium tiers!
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2023 12:02 PM by JSchmack.)
(08-11-2023 10:44 AM)jrj84105 Wrote: The biggest lie in college football, and the single greatest contributor to the PAC’s demise was mostly spread by PAC fans.
“I can’t even get the PAC12 network”.
Was that true? No. It was a lie, as we’ll see below. And we can speculate as to why this lie was so prevalent especially on places like this sub.
Some key time points for expanding access to the PAC12 include:
Summer 2011 DISH.
August, 2014 YouTube International.
February 2015 Sling.
**DISH**
In the Summer of 2011, prior to the inaugural PAC12 kickoff, DISH was added as a PAC partner. This made the P12N available nationally. So what were the barriers to adoption for PAC fans?
1) Don’t have my own roof. Renters, apartment dwellers, and other people who literally could not place a dish on a roof did not have access.
2) NFL Sunday ticket. The only reason why DTV was a sticking point was that DTV was the home of NFL Sunday Ticket. Any PAC fan who chose DTV (and the choice was aided by the fact that if you called DTV to cancel and mentioned the P12N they would offer you free Sunday Ticket) obviously had a roof and the opportunity to get DISH. Although this segment of NFL-first fans had the opportunity to get DISH and P12N, they seem almost universally to have made the false claim/lie that “I can’t even get the P12N”. This lie served the purpose of protecting their egos as fans, because to say that I chose not to get the P12N would accurately characterize this segment as fair-weather fans.
**YouTube International**
The PAC12 network became available on YouTube International for $10 month. In August 2014. As an a la carte option this was the dream of early adopter cord-cutters. All that stood in their path was a $10 subscription and a VPN to spoof their location. I think a lot of early core-cutters had the VPN issue solved. So why didn’t they do this? Likely lack of awareness. Any positive mention of P12N access on any forum, including this one, was completely drowned out be the DTV-subscribing “I can’t get the P12N” fans noted above.
**Sling**
For people without roofs, Sling became an option in February 2015. For the 98% of American households with broadband Internet access, getting the PAC12N was a few mouse clicks away.
Now for 98% of the population “I can’t get the P12N” was an outright lie. So why is this narrative so pervasive on r/CFB?
Because P12 fans suck. Not because they didn’t pay for a service that might make them chose against another interest like the NFL. But because overwhelmingly people who made this choice outright will lied about it to cover the fact that they are fair-weather fans. And in doing so they completely undermined the financial viability of the conference by destroying its public perception and creating a barrier of misinformation that kept potential new subscribers and revenue from being realized by the conference.
It was because their cable carrier didn't carry it and they didn't care enough to switch to one that did. LHN had a lot better distribution than P12N, let alone BTN, SECN and ACCN.
LHN had ESPN leveraging the network into forced bundles.
Pac-12 cuts a deal with Fox, ESPN, Comcast/NBC, CBS, they get in more homes.
Exactly. And the LHN didn't have good carriage at first because ESPN didn't use their leverage. They learned from their LHN experience to make sure the SECN got in very quickly. They designed its launch to coincide with ESPN renewals.
Pac-12 Networks will pay each school around $25 million total over the dozen years since the networks’ founding, far less than what was initially imagined. (this is before the COMCAST overpayment)
Pac12 Network Payout by year:
Those payout numbers are as follows:
2013: None listed
2014: $862,000 per school
2015 $1,677,500 per school
2016 $1,980,250 per school
2017: $2,522,167 per school
2018: $2,666,667 per school
(08-11-2023 08:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: When my home was being built in 2005, I had it prewired for cable TV. Charter/Spectrum is the cable provider for the area that I live in. I am not going to switch providers just for the Pac-12 Network. Since I live in Southern California, it made more sense for the provider to add the Pac-12 Network in order for fans of UCLA and USC to watch their local teams.
Spectrum SportsNet LA was the exclusive home for Dodger and Laker home games. If I changed providers, I lost access to the Dodger and Laker home games. I was happy with Spectrum, the sports coverage was good, and I felt no need to change.
1). So you COULD get the P12N but instead you chose to Dodgers and Lakers programming instead. The lie is that you had no choice. You did have a choice and chose pro sports ( what I said was the most common reason for choosing not to get the P12N.
2). I want you to think a minute about how stupid the bolded part of your post is. Just abjectly moronic.
So when you continued to pay Spectrum your monthly cable bill, it made sense for them to go out and secure more programming and eat into their bottom line in order to retain the customer that’s already happy with their product and at no risk of being lost as a customer?
The reason why DTV and Spectrum didn’t carry the P12N isn’t because fans like you didn’t whine, it’s because you kept paying the bill and using their product. That wasn’t a failure on Larry Scott’s part. That’s a failure by the “fans”. Why don’t you guys understand this?
This is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make.
Had the SEC or B1G or BXII gone to market with the P12N, their fans would have changed providers and caused the non-carrying providers to capitulate and carry the network. ACC might have been in the same boat with pro-sports first fans. But I think even the ACC comes through and makes its network work, because I don’t think the entitlement component would have been as strong.
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2023 03:54 PM by jrj84105.)
(08-16-2023 03:32 PM)jrj84105 Wrote: 1). So you COULD get the P12N but instead you chose to Dodgers and Lakers programming instead. The lie is that you had no choice. You did have a choice
Where does this logic end? Is there any game that a fan couldn't see if cost and convenience was of no importance? I mean, you could hire someone to go to the game and live stream it back to you. You could watch those sketchy bootleg videos of someone streaming from any network that exists. You could attend every game in person. You could fly in on a blimp and watch from the air.
But you just chose not to. How dare fans not do so? If they were real fans they'd stop at nothing. Why blame the commissioner for not making things more accessible? It's not like it's his job to evaluate what the fan base and the market will tolerate?
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2023 04:03 PM by inutech.)
/
The lie that killed the P12
