DIRECTV: HOW MANY SPORTS CHANNELS DO WE NEED? MAY NOT ADD LONGHORN, PAC-12, ETC.

[gregg75]

story......

DirecTV is especially wary about new and planned niche sports services such as the Longhorn Channel (University of Texas sports), the Pac-12 Network, and a channel for the Los Angeles Lakers. “I just don’t think the consumer’s interested in paying more,” Doyle says.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/dir...weak-sub-growth-and-ppv-spending/#more-171870

 

[nomadcowatbk]

How many people would even pay for these channels in an ala carte system?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

They're following the mold of the Big Ten Network, which was clearly first of this breed. Nearly all cable providers in the midwest put it in the "extended basic" tier with the likes of Discovery, CNN, and ESPN. That wasn't the case early on, when most cable companies felt the same way DirecTV does now about Pac12, etc.

The channel is now profitable. Why wouldn't the other conferences want in?

 

[azumanga]

They're following the mold of the Big Ten Network, which was clearly first of this breed. Nearly all cable providers in the midwest put it in the "extended basic" tier with the likes of Discovery, CNN, and ESPN. That wasn't the case early on, when most cable companies felt the same way DirecTV does now about Pac12, etc.

The channel is now profitable.

Let me guess why -- they have the same "everyone gets it or no one gets it" attitude like ESPN?

 

[mnradiofan]

They're following the mold of the Big Ten Network, which was clearly first of this breed. Nearly all cable providers in the midwest put it in the "extended basic" tier with the likes of Discovery, CNN, and ESPN. That wasn't the case early on, when most cable companies felt the same way DirecTV does now about Pac12, etc.

The channel is now profitable.

Let me guess why -- they have the same "everyone gets it or no one gets it" attitude like ESPN?

Yes, in areas that they have teams in, it's all or nothing. Outside of those markets, it can go wherever. Personally, I'm OK with that approach. Big Ten Network does a better job covering the local college team than others, simply because it's all they do. But I wouldn't expect someone outside of a Big Ten market to "have" to pay for it.

Now, when you get so granular that you are covering ONE TEAM that is getting a bit obsessive. The Minnesota Twins tried that here one year with "Victory Sports". Not a single cable provider picked it up, and halfway through the first season, the network folded and games returned to Fox Sports North.

 

[mgsports]

More Channels the better.
We need More ESPN'S.

 

[azumanga]

More Channels the better.
We need More ESPN'S.

Not if those who don't watch the channels had to foot the bill.

 

[Mediafrog+]

More Channels the better.
We need More ESPN'S.

Not if those who don't watch the channels had to foot the bill.

Which is why The Longhorn Network is having all kinds of trouble getting carriage in the State of Texas. The knuckleheads in Bristol think that everyone in the Lone Star State is a rabid Texas fan, which is light years from the truth. Non-fans don't want to be forced to pay for a service that helps fund an athletic program they loathe.

 

[Poledo]

As long as everyone gets the SEC network in the basic cable package they can put all these other sports channels on the Premium tier. No one would mind paying a little more if they were actually Big 10 fans... but as long as the SEC rules, they should get preferred treatment.

Yeah, I know the SEC network is a syndicated deal... blah blah.

Maybe it's finally time to create a real Sports Tier, including ESPN stations... with no full time sports channels on the Basic Cable package. Ween the Basic cable lineup to around 30 stations (ie, TBS, USA, Lifetime, History, FX, CSPAN, QVC, etc) plus local channels (including all digital subs, Class As & significantly viewed, do away with retransmission consent... syndex should probably stay) so the average American can afford cable without thinking about cancelling it every month when the $100+ bill comes.

If they don't do something different soon, pricing is going to get so ridiculous that cable & sat cos will be forced to offer al-a-carte to get customers back. We no longer need cable to watch TV shows. DVRs are teaching people to be patient, so they will be more willing to wait to get their shows on demand a few days later if it will save them some cash. Most of us can already get VOD and PPV without cable... not to mention DVDs and downloads.

 

[arnoldevns]

I think a la cart would have the unintended consequence of actually raising cable bills while dramatically cutting the number of channels available.

That said, I think these specialty sports channels will find it difficult to get wide carriage. Big Ten works because it has so many schools that have a national following. Longhorn does not work because it represents just one school in one state. The Pac 12 might work, but it is likely too regional. (doubtful there will be a huge demand for it on the east coast.)

Channels for just the Lakers etc, are just silly. The Dallas Cowboys briefly had a channel, but the league nixed that after it created the NFL Network. What on earth would a Lakers channel run on the 300+ days a year that they didn't have live Lakers games?

I think ultimately these entities will find that a whole channel just for them does not work and does not make money. But something else could work: Pay-per-view. Even at that, I think most of them will do the math and determine that going with a regular regional sports network like FSN is the way to go.

 

[mgsports]

Sec Network like the Big 12 one are not real Channels.
The reason why need another ESPN is sometimes we don't get to get a 10pm Baseball Tonight like Tonight and the 3 days before tonight to didn't,so we can have Baseball Coast to Coast because we have NBA Coast to Coast and MLB Live because we have NFL Live.
Also need a ESPN Radio TV Channel or Sports radio TV Channel or even 24/7 Talk TV/Radio Channel

 

[Scoobyfan1]

I think a la cart would have the unintended consequence of actually raising cable bills while dramatically cutting the number of channels available.

That said, I think these specialty sports channels will find it difficult to get wide carriage. Big Ten works because it has so many schools that have a national following. Longhorn does not work because it represents just one school in one state. The Pac 12 might work, but it is likely too regional. (doubtful there will be a huge demand for it on the east coast.)

Channels for just the Lakers etc, are just silly. The Dallas Cowboys briefly had a channel, but the league nixed that after it created the NFL Network. What on earth would a Lakers channel run on the 300+ days a year that they didn't have live Lakers games?

I think ultimately these entities will find that a whole channel just for them does not work and does not make money. But something else could work: Pay-per-view. Even at that, I think most of them will do the math and determine that going with a regular regional sports network like FSN is the way to go.

This was before(by a little bit) DirecTV's launch, but several NBA and NHL teams in the 90s did have pay per view for a few games. For the NBA, I believe the Seattle Super Sonics, Portland Trail Blazers, and I think Dallas Mavericks for periods of time all had games available via pay per view.

As for the NHL, and some one can correct me if i'm wrong about this, but I believe the old Minnesota North Stars, Chicago Blackhawks and in the present day the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames all have pay per view games in their respective markets.

Of course in addition to all of those teams, certain schools in the midwest and south still offer games via pay per view in their respective areas today, so it could still work for pro teams.

Question is, would it be applicable, and would it be worth it to offer pro games via pay per view now on cable and satellite providers?

 

[William_Yeager]

I think ESPN will one day cease to exist as we currently know it. It may be decades from now, but conferences and professional sports leagues will eventually figure out how to cut out the middle man. Ultimately, everybody gets some variation of the following:

• NFL Network
• MLB Network
• NBA TV
• NHL Network
• Speed
• Whatever college conferences are relevant for an area - Big Ten, Pac 12/14/16, SEC, etc.

You could effectively see 8-10 channels replace the ESPN family, as well as Versus (soon to be NBC Sports) and CBS Sports, although Versus may be a tougher out because of the ties with Comcast. The regional sports networks might actually improve as more live programming is available to them.

If everyone wanted ESPN to go away, it would not be difficult to divide up the ESPN empire:

• NFL - Monday Night Football moves to the NFL Network
• MLB Network - with some cooperative scheduling with the West Coast teams, could show 360 games or more during the regular season, up from 200
• NBA - Would only need to absorb a maxium of 4 games per week from ESPN
• NCAA - The NCAA might have some issues with airing championships on conference networks, but it could partner with RSNs or other cable networks that have shown interest in airing sports (i.e. TBS/TNT)
• Soccer - Fox already has two Soccer channels, Fox Soccer and Fox Soccer Plus

Local independent stations who find themselves on cable may be targeted for syndicated events, especially among lesser NCAA programs (i.e. Sun Belt, MAC, WAC). You may also see some strange pairings in the offseason, such as Major League Lacrosse on the NHL Network, or college baseball games in February and early March on the MLB Network.

 

[JeeperOne]

More Channels the better.
We need More ESPN'S.

Not if those who don't watch the channels had to foot the bill.

Which is why The Longhorn Network is having all kinds of trouble getting carriage in the State of Texas. The knuckleheads in Bristol think that everyone in the Lone Star State is a rabid Texas fan, which is light years from the truth. Non-fans don't want to be forced to pay for a service that helps fund an athletic program they loathe.

Meanwhile there are other knuckleheads who seem to think those of us in Denver somehow care about the NEW MEXICO STATE AGGIES !!!!!

Altitude is a sucker for little networks like AggieVision (Yep! That's the name of the network too. SO 1980s isn't it?)

At least KTVD 20 carries ACC games (A conference that's somewhat interesting)

Cheers & 73

 

[JeeperOne]

As long as everyone gets the SEC network in the basic cable package they can put all these other sports channels on the Premium tier. No one would mind paying a little more if they were actually Big 10 fans... but as long as the SEC rules, they should get preferred treatment.

Yeah, I know the SEC network is a syndicated deal... blah blah.

I get enough SEC games from CBS & ESPN. I don't need an entire network devoted to the conference. The only two networks we need are TheMtn (Mountain West Conference Network) & (When it finally goes on the air) the Pac 12 Network as those are the conferences our local college teams are in

I don't need the Big Ten Network or ANY OTHER conference network for that matter as I can watch those teams on FOX, CBS, NBC & ESPN !!!

Maybe it's finally time to create a real Sports Tier, including ESPN stations... with no full time sports channels on the Basic Cable package.

Comcast already has one here in Denver. Problem is Altitude (An ESPN affiliate IIRC), ROOT Sports (FSN affiliate), Golf Channel, Versus/NBC Sports Network, Speed Channel, ESPN & ESPN2 are still in the Basic package while Fox Soccer Channel, ESPNNEWS, ESPN Classic, ESPNU, CBS Sports Network, TheMtn, Big Ten Network, NFL Network (Both channels), NHL Network, MLB Network as well as a few outdoor & automotive channels are all in the Digital Sports Tier. We don't have ESPN Goal Line (Not even on a shared basis with NFL RedZone), Tennis Channel or the secondary MLB Network channel (Which they use during conflicts)

Of course that list doesn't include Universal Sports which is in the Digital subchannel section along with Antenna TV, Cool TV, a local 24/7 news loop channel, a weather channel, ThisTV, the PBS & Godcaster subchannels & Mhz. Networks

Go figure

If they don't do something different soon, pricing is going to get so ridiculous that cable & sat cos will be forced to offer al-a-carte to get customers back. We no longer need cable to watch TV shows. DVRs are teaching people to be patient, so they will be more willing to wait to get their shows on demand a few days later if it will save them some cash. Most of us can already get VOD and PPV without cable... not to mention DVDs and downloads.

Cable channels are already offering FREE APPS for smartphones which will enable people to watch them that way. All the ESPN channels & the Turner-owned networks already offer this

Who needs the middle man these days?

Cheers & 73

 

[JeeperOne]

I think a la cart would have the unintended consequence of actually raising cable bills while dramatically cutting the number of channels available.

Not really. If anything, it would create a WYGIWYPF (What You Get Is What You Pay For)approach

That said, I think these specialty sports channels will find it difficult to get wide carriage. Big Ten works because it has so many schools that have a national following. Longhorn does not work because it represents just one school in one state. The Pac 12 might work, but it is likely too regional. (doubtful there will be a huge demand for it on the east coast.)

It wouldn't generate much interest East of The Mississippi except in the old Big 10 states LET ALONE the East Coast

Channels for just the Lakers etc, are just silly. The Dallas Cowboys briefly had a channel, but the league nixed that after it created the NFL Network. What on earth would a Lakers channel run on the 300+ days a year that they didn't have live Lakers games?

Word has it they're trying to get other teams interested too (Good luck doing that outside of the colleges)

I think ultimately these entities will find that a whole channel just for them does not work and does not make money. But something else could work: Pay-per-view. Even at that, I think most of them will do the math and determine that going with a regular regional sports network like FSN is the way to go.

Agreed. Those few diehards who are interested enough WILL pony up for it IMO

Cheers & 73

 

[mgsports]

You don't have NBATV or World Fishing Network,Regional Sports Networks or so on yet?
Pac-12 could be expanding with Texas/OK/OK State and Texas Tech.
The ACC could start a channel with new Teams it's getting.
I never knew MLB Network had another channel.

ESPN needs to stay and can do regional Channels.
On Comcast in Olathe/MO MU and Nebraska get their own Paper Per View Channels for Football but only on for one day Saturday.

 

[William_Yeager]

ESPN is reporting that Texas is working out details on heading to the Pac 12 with Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. Texas will reportedly modify the Longhorn Network to show some Pac 12 (16) programming. What's interesting is that the Pac 12 Network is actually 7 channels-one main one, and six regional ones (Southern California, Northern California, Arizona, Mountain, Oregon, Washington) that will each feature 2 schools. I'm not sure if Texas Tech is being shoved onto LHN, or on to what would have been Pac 16 Oklahoma with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

 

[nocomradio]

I think a la cart would have the unintended consequence of actually raising cable bills while dramatically cutting the number of channels available.

If I still had pay-TV, I'd pay more if I didn't have to be loaded with all the extra stuff I didn't need. (I dumped my DirecTV over 2 years ago for this very reason) I NEVER watch any sports channels period. Yet I am stuck with them and the threat of adding more.

But, if it did dramatically cut the number of channels available, that would send a very clear message, that no one wants all of that extra stuff they never watch. Just my opinion.