|
|
Post by p8nted on Sept 10, 2023 8:47:25 GMT -8
The conference gets the money not the PAC 12 network. The CBS game last week was under the MWC contract. We still have our current contract, so the major networks still get first pick of games. Also, some of our games were picked under other conference’s media deals. Since those networks picked up most of the games this week, there was only 2 left to be shown on the PAC 12 network. Just realized this… if the PAC were streaming with Apple, fans of OOC teams wanting to watch a game held at a PAC stadium would probably have to buy a month of Apple streaming to see the game unless Apple has a deal with another carrier. That could be both a good thing and a bad thing. It wouldn’t shock me if Apple has a deal with other carriers, I’m pretty sure I can watch non-Apple shows from the Apple app already. Hawaii has a separate deal from the MWC TV contract for home games. You can buy a stream on their service for a single game. Like buying a ticket to that game. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 10, 2023 9:14:13 GMT -8
Just realized this… if the PAC were streaming with Apple, fans of OOC teams wanting to watch a game held at a PAC stadium would probably have to buy a month of Apple streaming to see the game unless Apple has a deal with another carrier. That could be both a good thing and a bad thing. It wouldn’t shock me if Apple has a deal with other carriers, I’m pretty sure I can watch non-Apple shows from the Apple app already. Hawaii has a separate deal from the MWC TV contract for home games. You can buy a stream on their service for a single game. Like buying a ticket to that game. Hawaii has been using pay for view for home games for about 15-20 years or so. I lived there from ‘99 through the ‘12 season. Initially the outer islands got it free and Oahu was blacked out for a tape delay. I lived on the Big Island, that’s when I started following UH football. By my recollection, once they started PPV, it was every island paid to see it live and taped repeats were available free on a later date. I’m kind of assuming they haven’t changed that since I left. I’ve thought that could be an option here if worse comes to worse with the media contract. |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Sept 10, 2023 9:32:11 GMT -8
Hawaii has a separate deal from the MWC TV contract for home games. You can buy a stream on their service for a single game. Like buying a ticket to that game. Hawaii has been using pay for view for home games for about 15-20 years or so. I lived there from ‘99 through the ‘12 season. Initially the outer islands got it free and Oahu was blacked out for a tape delay. I lived on the Big Island, that’s when I started following UH football. By my recollection, once they started PPV, it was every island paid to see it live and taped repeats were available free on a later date. I’m kind of assuming they haven’t changed that since I left. I’ve thought that could be an option here if worse comes to worse with the media contract. I lived in Kona for a few years. in 2020 Hawaii signed with spectrum and it is on spectrum TV package in Hawaii. In addition to its football pay-per-view package, UH and Spectrum said they will again offer streaming options in partnership with the Mountain West Conference for fans outside of Hawaii www.staradvertiser.com/2020/09/03/sports/university-of-hawaii-extends-tv-rights-deal-with-spectrum/ |
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 10, 2023 10:41:06 GMT -8
People are unquestionably switching to cable vs. streaming, but it's not as if cable is now dead in the water. Really, to reach the most fans, probably some element of live television is still a good idea to have. In the US and much of Mexico and Canada there are tons of places you can’t get cable. If you can see the sky reasonably well, you can pay Elon some money and you can stream… out on a mountain, down by the lake, out in the desert, driving down the road, even fighting a war against Russia apparently. Currently my wife and I use cable at the house for internet only, once we finish building out our cargo van we won’t even need a decent phone signal to get it. Agreed. You do not have to convince me that streaming is far more available than cable. I have been streaming for years. What I am saying is that, at this point in time, there are still a LOT of people who subscribe to cable. It is still a sizable audience. Sizable enough that I think that, again, at this point in time, it may not be wise to abandon that market altogether. Unquestionably the day is coming, probably sooner rather than later, that cable will go the way of VHS: viable for some time (even longer than VHS) and then one day no longer so. Is that two years from now? Ten? I have no idea. But I don't think we're quite there yet. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Sept 10, 2023 13:23:34 GMT -8
In the US and much of Mexico and Canada there are tons of places you can’t get cable. If you can see the sky reasonably well, you can pay Elon some money and you can stream… out on a mountain, down by the lake, out in the desert, driving down the road, even fighting a war against Russia apparently. Currently my wife and I use cable at the house for internet only, once we finish building out our cargo van we won’t even need a decent phone signal to get it. Agreed. You do not have to convince me that streaming is far more available than cable. I have been streaming for years. What I am saying is that, at this point in time, there are still a LOT of people who subscribe to cable. It is still a sizable audience. Sizable enough that I think that, again, at this point in time, it may not be wise to abandon that market altogether. Unquestionably the day is coming, probably sooner rather than later, that cable will go the way of VHS: viable for some time (even longer than VHS) and then one day no longer so. Is that two years from now? Ten? I have no idea. But I don't think we're quite there yet. I'm not sure that I agree. For one, streaming services like YouTubeTV which aim to replace cable or satellite are becoming increasingly more expensive. The advantages are no longer so clear. Especially since cable tv providers join in with internet providers to offer bundles.
Streaming of extras, like Disney+, Netflix, Apple TV+, ESPN+ are definitely here to stay. But I think the number of people who abandon all the regular channels offered by cable/satellite/streaming for only these packages are few and far between. And they are probably not sports fans. I think sports fans add streaming services to suit their tastes.
I would like to watch Pac 12 TV. I would pay to watch it, even though it isn't a polished channel. But Pac 12 limits the providers who can offer subscriptions and there's no way to sign up for an individual streaming subscription, even though there's an App. I think the whole Pac 12 Network could have been much more successful if it had offered simple subscriptions to folks like me.
Definitely, requiring viewers to have a subscription to a cable provider is antiquated thinking.
|
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by ftd on Sept 10, 2023 13:28:50 GMT -8
well if you are an NFL Thursday Night Football fan.....if you don't have Prime Video...you are SOL
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 10, 2023 13:42:47 GMT -8
Agreed. You do not have to convince me that streaming is far more available than cable. I have been streaming for years. What I am saying is that, at this point in time, there are still a LOT of people who subscribe to cable. It is still a sizable audience. Sizable enough that I think that, again, at this point in time, it may not be wise to abandon that market altogether. Unquestionably the day is coming, probably sooner rather than later, that cable will go the way of VHS: viable for some time (even longer than VHS) and then one day no longer so. Is that two years from now? Ten? I have no idea. But I don't think we're quite there yet. I'm not sure that I agree. For one, streaming services like YouTubeTV which aim to replace cable or satellite are becoming increasingly more expensive. The advantages are no longer so clear. Especially since cable tv providers join in with internet providers to offer bundles.
Streaming of extras, like Disney+, Netflix, Apple TV+, ESPN+ are definitely here to stay. But I think the number of people who abandon all the regular channels offered by cable/satellite/streaming for only these packages are few and far between. And they are probably not sports fans. I think sports fans add streaming services to suit their tastes.
I would like to watch Pac 12 TV. I would pay to watch it, even though it isn't a polished channel. But Pac 12 limits the providers who can offer subscriptions and there's no way to sign up for an individual streaming subscription, even though there's an App. I think the whole Pac 12 Network could have been much more successful if it had offered simple subscriptions to folks like me.
Definitely, requiring viewers to have a subscription to a cable provider is antiquated thinking.
Define "regular channels". All I know is my wife and I are streaming, we get the Pac 12 channels, local network TV, Disney, Apple, Hulu, Roku, HBO, a bunch of other networks Ive never hesrd of or used and a PILE of "regular" Networks on FUBO...ll for less than we were paying Comcast 3 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Sept 10, 2023 15:23:36 GMT -8
I'm not sure that I agree. For one, streaming services like YouTubeTV which aim to replace cable or satellite are becoming increasingly more expensive. The advantages are no longer so clear. Especially since cable tv providers join in with internet providers to offer bundles.
Streaming of extras, like Disney+, Netflix, Apple TV+, ESPN+ are definitely here to stay. But I think the number of people who abandon all the regular channels offered by cable/satellite/streaming for only these packages are few and far between. And they are probably not sports fans. I think sports fans add streaming services to suit their tastes.
I would like to watch Pac 12 TV. I would pay to watch it, even though it isn't a polished channel. But Pac 12 limits the providers who can offer subscriptions and there's no way to sign up for an individual streaming subscription, even though there's an App. I think the whole Pac 12 Network could have been much more successful if it had offered simple subscriptions to folks like me.
Definitely, requiring viewers to have a subscription to a cable provider is antiquated thinking.
Define "regular channels". All I know is my wife and I are streaming, we get the Pac 12 channels, local network TV, Disney, Apple, Hulu, Roku, HBO, a bunch of other networks Ive never hesrd of or used and a PILE of "regular" Networks on FUBO...ll for less than we were paying Comcast 3 years ago. Regular channels: ESPN, Comedy Central, HGTV, Scifi, Nickleodian, etc. The basic cable stuff from back in the day.
I stream with YouTubeTV. It's got most of what I want. When I started it was something like $50 a month and my colleague who opened my eyes to this was complaining because it had just jumped in price. Now it's closer to $70 and has add ons like the old cable companies used to. All of the HBO, Showtime, etc. channels. A sports package. NFL package. Etc.
Not so different from a cable company, except that I need good internet to enjoy it.
(Note: I'm a basic cable kind of guy. So I'm comparing the lowest ends of the two, not the tricked out versions. I know my sister used to pay tons for her cable. There isn't enough good TV to warrant that in my opinion.)
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 10, 2023 16:24:52 GMT -8
Agreed. You do not have to convince me that streaming is far more available than cable. I have been streaming for years. What I am saying is that, at this point in time, there are still a LOT of people who subscribe to cable. It is still a sizable audience. Sizable enough that I think that, again, at this point in time, it may not be wise to abandon that market altogether. Unquestionably the day is coming, probably sooner rather than later, that cable will go the way of VHS: viable for some time (even longer than VHS) and then one day no longer so. Is that two years from now? Ten? I have no idea. But I don't think we're quite there yet. I'm not sure that I agree. For one, streaming services like YouTubeTV which aim to replace cable or satellite are becoming increasingly more expensive. The advantages are no longer so clear. Especially since cable tv providers join in with internet providers to offer bundles.
Streaming of extras, like Disney+, Netflix, Apple TV+, ESPN+ are definitely here to stay. But I think the number of people who abandon all the regular channels offered by cable/satellite/streaming for only these packages are few and far between. And they are probably not sports fans. I think sports fans add streaming services to suit their tastes.
I would like to watch Pac 12 TV. I would pay to watch it, even though it isn't a polished channel. But Pac 12 limits the providers who can offer subscriptions and there's no way to sign up for an individual streaming subscription, even though there's an App. I think the whole Pac 12 Network could have been much more successful if it had offered simple subscriptions to folks like me.
Definitely, requiring viewers to have a subscription to a cable provider is antiquated thinking.
Yet again, I agree with the points of this post. I agree that it would be nice if a Pac 12 fan could merely subscribe to the network as a stand-alone subscription. I don't think it should be necessary to subscribe to a streaming package of programs to get the Pac 12 app. I don't think a person should have to subscribe to a cable/satellite service to get the Pac 12. Let me be clear: I don't think a person should ever have to subscribe to a cable/satellite/streaming service to get Pac 12 sports games. However, I still think a lot of people do subscribe to at least one of those services as the sum total of their broadcast entertainment, with another chunk of people who subscribe to a cable/satellite/streaming service along with one or more add-on packages as the source of their broadcast entertainment. Example: I subscribe to high-speed internet in my home, use it to enable Sling TV, to which I also subscribe, and use Sling TV as a base to add their optional Sports Package, which carries the Pac 12 Networks. I think there are a lot of people left who still subscribe to one service or another and don't want to hunt further to get what they want. Those are the people whom we still have to reach. I really don't care if they are boomers or what age; I just care that there are some who will not get the Pac 12 Network if it is never broadcast on, say for example, Dish Network. Which is exactly what happened and which is one reason why the Pac 12 missed out on a big chunk of exposure and money and which is one reason why the Pac 12 was not in an ideal position when it came to media rights negotiation: because the network was not on every possible media source, including large sources of media such as Dish. I still think we have to reach those people who still subscribe to satellite and/or cable as if it were 1997. They still constitute a chunk of the market. I don't want to MAKE people subscribe to cable or any other service, but I still want the Pac 12 reachable if they do subscribe to cable or satellite as their source of broadcast entertainment. I want the Pac 12 available to anyone who wants it, cable, satellite, streaming, par-per-view, you name it. I also think it is a mistake for people to consider abandoning the Pac 12 network. The Pac 12 Network is a television studio, complete with equipment and software that makes it one of the most efficient and advanced television production studios in the world. The Pac 12 also owes money for leasing the building in Sam Ramon where the Pac 12 Network is housed. So if we owe money on a lease and there is a television studio at our fingertips, why not use it? This past week, there were a grand total of four (4) Mountain West Conference games broadcast. How good of a media contract will a PacMoutain merger get? Will every game be shown? On what networks? My belief: let's ensure that our conference, wherever and however it winds up, shows every game every weekend. Use the leftovers of the Pac 12 Networks as a resource to ensure it happens, if need be. And make every game accessible to every form of broadcast media available. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Sept 10, 2023 16:46:15 GMT -8
I'm not sure that I agree. For one, streaming services like YouTubeTV which aim to replace cable or satellite are becoming increasingly more expensive. The advantages are no longer so clear. Especially since cable tv providers join in with internet providers to offer bundles.
Streaming of extras, like Disney+, Netflix, Apple TV+, ESPN+ are definitely here to stay. But I think the number of people who abandon all the regular channels offered by cable/satellite/streaming for only these packages are few and far between. And they are probably not sports fans. I think sports fans add streaming services to suit their tastes.
I would like to watch Pac 12 TV. I would pay to watch it, even though it isn't a polished channel. But Pac 12 limits the providers who can offer subscriptions and there's no way to sign up for an individual streaming subscription, even though there's an App. I think the whole Pac 12 Network could have been much more successful if it had offered simple subscriptions to folks like me.
Definitely, requiring viewers to have a subscription to a cable provider is antiquated thinking.
Yet again, I agree with the points of this post. I agree that it would be nice if a Pac 12 fan could merely subscribe to the network as a stand-alone subscription. I don't think it should be necessary to subscribe to a streaming package of programs to get the Pac 12 app. I don't think a person should have to subscribe to a cable/satellite service to get the Pac 12. Let me be clear: I don't think a person should ever have to subscribe to a cable/satellite/streaming service to get Pac 12 sports games. However, I still think a lot of people do subscribe to at least one of those services as the sum total of their broadcast entertainment, with another chunk of people who subscribe to a cable/satellite/streaming service along with one or more add-on packages as the source of their broadcast entertainment. Example: I subscribe to high-speed internet in my home, use it to enable Sling TV, to which I also subscribe, and use Sling TV as a base to add their optional Sports Package, which carries the Pac 12 Networks. I think there are a lot of people left who still subscribe to one service or another and don't want to hunt further to get what they want. Those are the people whom we still have to reach. I really don't care if they are boomers or what age; I just care that there are some who will not get the Pac 12 Network if it is never broadcast on, say for example, Dish Network. Which is exactly what happened and which is one reason why the Pac 12 missed out on a big chunk of exposure and money and which is one reason why the Pac 12 was not in an ideal position when it came to media rights negotiation: because the network was not on every possible media source, including large sources of media such as Dish. I still think we have to reach those people who still subscribe to satellite and/or cable as if it were 1997. They still constitute a chunk of the market. I don't want to MAKE people subscribe to cable or any other service, but I still want the Pac 12 reachable if they do subscribe to cable or satellite as their source of broadcast entertainment. I want the Pac 12 available to anyone who wants it, cable, satellite, streaming, par-per-view, you name it. I also think it is a mistake for people to consider abandoning the Pac 12 network. The Pac 12 Network is a television studio, complete with equipment and software that makes it one of the most efficient and advanced television production studios in the world. The Pac 12 also owes money for leasing the building in Sam Ramon where the Pac 12 Network is housed. So if we owe money on a lease and there is a television studio at our fingertips, why not use it? This past week, there were a grand total of four (4) Mountain West Conference games broadcast. How good of a media contract will a PacMoutain merger get? Will every game be shown? On what networks? My belief: let's ensure that our conference, wherever and however it winds up, shows every game every weekend. Use the leftovers of the Pac 12 Networks as a resource to ensure it happens, if need be. And make every game accessible to every form of broadcast media available. I agree completely. I think that there is a lot of value in being on "broadcast" TV because people flip through channels and find a game to watch. I've watched old NFL and old Ohio State games this way.
I think fewer people decide to open an app and stream a game to watch unless they have some connection to that game or that conference. But the appeal of being able to subscribe as an individual to a service to see Pac 12 games is very alluring, especially after having gone without for so long....Or by "going" to "France" and watching the Pac 12 International channel which may or may not be showing the game that is listed.
Pac 12 Network misses its target. I don't think Apple would.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 10, 2023 16:51:47 GMT -8
Bottom line is there's no one service that can handle everbody. You can't get the Pac 12 channel over the air, basic cable, or Dish network. Cable usually requires getting an additional sports packages the last I looked, I'm not sure about Direct TV if it's all inclusive or part of a package upgrade.
The one thing that most, not all, people have these days is high speed internet. The Apple streaming service would be an added expense, but it would be available to pretty much anyone with high speed internet, and that's getting a further/deeper reach all the time.
Since there's no one size fits all, yet, solution, one size fits most is a pretty good option.
|
|
doink
Freshman
Posts: 2
Grad Year: 2015
|
Post by doink on Sept 10, 2023 16:52:59 GMT -8
I admittedly have not had cable in almost 10 years now. Streaming is the most cost effective option for me: I subscribe monthly to ESPN Plus, Peacock, Paramount Plus, and tbh just use a friend of mine's login for Shudder as I like horror movies; that's all I need as don't have a ton of downtime anyway to watch tv and if do want to watch sports no on any of the above(OSU for example) tbh I use streaming sites.
To me cable has just become a ripoff, but to each their own for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by castorcanadensis on Sept 10, 2023 20:46:01 GMT -8
Imagine if you could open the pac-12 app and pay a $99 subscription for one year. Boom all the games are at your fingertips. Get 3 million subs across the globe and there is $30M a year per 10 schools. Genius!
|
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Sept 10, 2023 21:56:07 GMT -8
Imagine if you could open the pac-12 app and pay a $99 subscription for one year. Boom all the games are at your fingertips. Get 3 million subs across the globe and there is $30M a year per 10 schools. Genius! Precisely. Having an app but not allowing stand alone subscriptions is 2010 thinking. |
|
