DirecTV received just under 3,500 calls in the last 6 months
 

from people requesting the mtn. That includes people stating that as the reason they cancel their subscription. DirecTV took over 750k calls over that same time period. The mtn commercials were not effective and the braintrust behind the whole thing was sorely lacking. This has been a cluster **** from the beginning. I have very little hope that things will get figured out quickly for Dish.

Because never for a moment were we convinced that the idiot in this arrangement was DTV.

It looks like, in the end, the mtn/comcast caved.

From talking to my buddy at DTV, Comcast wants the Big 10. There is huge pressure on them to get it. They also didn't get a lift from holding out on the mtn that they were hoping. So now Comcast is losing money on the channel, wants something from DTV. They came to an agreement because the Comcast bottleline demanded it. Dish has nothing to offer right now, so their is no need to extend an olive branch to them.

Expect Comcast to get the Big 10 sometime before the football season. At least that was his comment.

why the heck would Dish care about the Mtn? For the 3000 subscriptions?

Direct TV got the MTN because Comcast wants the Big 10 channel? Can only Direct TV negotiate that?

I ask because I have Dish and I get The Big 10.

They wouldn't. There is no reason for them to go for it unless they're going to get something back for it. I am really surprised that DTV got it based on their own internal data.

dtv owns part of the Big 10 channels.

DirecTV owns the Big 10. They reached a distribution agreement with Dish Network before the beginning of the season last year. Big 10 fans were mad about cable like MWC fans were mad about satellite. I believe the Big 10 Network changes to a different tier this year for Dish.

Big 10 channel means zero to me. I haven't watched it once.

I think that bodes poorly for non-zoobs and non-zoots watching the mtn. The next deal won't be for 120 million. It will be for 20 million.

I agree. Both BYU and Utah would be better off if they negotiated their own deal. Bad for the conference though. The current format is like the NFL and NBA revenue sharing system. Some teams can demand big bucks and they subsidize the small markets. Everyone in the MWC is literally small market. ESPN knew it. Comcast has learned that the last two years. BYU and Utah can get decent deals. They need to shake the other 7 off and do their own thing.

Got it.

I've watched maybe 4 games on that channel - 2 football and 2 basketball. It's no big deal to me if I have it, though I have the Top 200 package, so if there is a change, I'll probably get it anyway.

I'd gladly trade half those channels for the MTN.

I think all of us would.

My point is that Dish has nothing to bargin with Comcast still. There is no pressure on either of them now to get a deal done. I'm fairly sure that Dish will very similar call center disposition data as DTV. They know they're not losing many customers. Certainly not enough to get into a bad deal. I'd be very suprised if Dish got the mtn before the season unless there is outside pressure from politicians or CBS/CSTV. Comcast and Dish alone don't have enough incentive to do it otherwise.

Agreed.

That isn't entirely accurate. TCU is in the Dallas/Ft. Worth market, and SDSU is not a small market. However, neither of those areas really give a damn about their college sports teams.

Next thing you are going to say is that the MWC needs to add SJSU because it is in a huge market...

I saw an article that said there are 400,000 dish subscribers in the MWC footprint. Granted not all want the MTN, but do they want to lose even 10% of that #?

When I said small market I meant they draw a small number of viewers and not the population of the surrounding area of the school. I know that Dallas and San Diego are good sized cities. San Diego residents are watching USC and UCLA. Dallas residents are watching Texas, A&M and probably Tech over TCU.

I told a BYU fan in my ward about the directv deal today. He said "I'll believe it when it happens." I said "no, there was an article in the paper, it's a done deal." "I'll believe it when I see it."

Good question. I doubt they'd lose 10%. I doubt they'll lose 2%. A lot of people have contracts with a termination clause. They're not going to lose enough to force them into a bad deal. Especially if they won't get the same pricing that DirecTV got as Haddow has indicated.

I doubt they lose 10% of 10%. If CJF's numbers are accurate, I could see maybe 4,000 people switching. And if that is all that switches, I don't think that's enough to get into a deal that is less than favorable with the mtn. Dish's main advantage has been their price point, so there is no need to mess with that just to keep 4,000 subscribers.

Come on Whitney, learn to take a joke...

:)

D'oh! I was deathly sick yesterday. Kind of dulled my senses.

A lot of BYU fans are fans, but not what I would call avid fans. Two of my sons have Dish. They would watch the BYU games if they were on TV, but neither of them would call and complain or even think about changing to Comcast.

If they were missing road or home games against BCS type opponents, I am sure they would feel different.

Watching BYU play USU, UNLV, Northern Iowa, CSU, SDSU, Wyoming, UNM, is not compelling for them. AFA and TCU are marginal. They know they will get to go to the Washington and UCLA games. So why would they switch because they will miss one game, BYU vs Utah. If they want to see it bad enough they can come to my house or their Uncles house.

Sad, but for a lot of BYU fans, the on the field product isn't good enough yet.
It may be that BYU doesn't need those marginal fans. It appears they don't need them in order to fill LES. However, as far as TV demand, maybe they do.

Here's what I don't get. A BCS game is great because we get to play a good BCS opponent, with more national exposure. Right? So why don't we schedule those games during the regular season, when we have the chance?

Am I crazy to think that we are better off taking the guaranteed vs. BCS game versus taking the div 1aa and utah states in hopes of the unlikely BCS bowl?

Here are the number of BCS teams we've played by season since ASU and UA went to the PAC10.

I think it is a good debate. The shot at the ring (money) argument makes sense from the aspect of getting money. If your attendance at LES doesn't drop and you get ranked in the top 15 as a reward for playing a weak schedule, then why not.

On the other hand there is the argument you are getting fed at McDonalds. Does there come a point where the fan base becomes tired of McDonalds. One could argue the enthusiasm for BYU football started to subside in the late nineties even before the Crowton era.

'96 was a big high. Winning on New years day. What followed was a let down.

please redo this, only including BCS teams played in the regular season. TIA.

I would like to see that statistic without Bowl games included.

I doubt anyone would seriously contend we are playing the calibre of BCS teams now as we did back in the day.

Back in the day? I think you are remembering a handful of seasons that were the exception, rather than the rule.

You might be right. For some reason the home schedules just seem to suck more than they used to in the 70's, 80's and early 90's.

That may be because my expectations were lower for BYU. It may also be that some of the teams we played were better than they are now. For example AFA, USU, CSU and San Diego St.

From 1978 through 2007, we had 2 regular season BCS opponents 16 out of 30 seasons (53%). In the last 15 years, we've had only 2 regular season BCS opponents 10 times (67%).

Here is the season by season breakdown.

Even the last ten years we have the legacy of scheduling that was done pre Bronco. It is Bronco's words that are troubling as far as future scheduling. Fortunately Holmoe doesn't seem to be on the same page.

I also think it is pretty clear as stated before, our old foes that used to be pretty decent are not so decent anymore.

You tell me Indy. What games coming up in LES this year have you really excited about.

I tried to sell my tickets to the Northern Illinois game on the board. No takers. True blue fans shoot their mouths off about how any BYU game is a great game to go to. When you call them on it, no takers.

Well, you can count me as one of those "4,000" new DTV subscribers. Oh, my brother as well, he's said he's planning on switching to DTV this summer.


Numbers from call centers can be skewed in so many different ways, you should ALWAYS take them with a grain of salt. I never personally called DTV or Dish. And yet, I'll be switching. I don't believe my brother ever personally called DTV or Dish. And yet, he'll be switching.

Are we atypical BYU fans? Sure...we both frequent message boards, which is typical of a more 'devoted' follower. Still, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see DTV subscriptions rise in MWC markets by far more than "4,000" subscriptions.

BYU71, it's not "what games are exciting?", it's your implied suggestion that BYU's schedule in the past was consistently better than it is now. That simply wasn't the case.

FWIW, if I didn't already have tickets to that game (and every game) lined up, I might have been willing to pick them up (depending on price).


Incidentally, I think Bronco's words are largely misunderstood. I really don't think he meant he wants to see a lot of pansies on the schedule. I think he wants to play 2-3 decent-to-good BCS teams a year, plus a cakewalk, and with maybe a ranked BCS team thrown in occasionally.

Many of the comments he's made, IMO, were more about commiserating with the crappy situation CFB is currently in with the BCS than about what he actually wants to have happen...

OK, let's not debate the perception. Let's debate the going forward. Going forward because of the BCS, I think in general non BCS teams will get weaker and weaker. There may be some exceptions, but that will be the case most of the time.

It will be interesting to see how Hawaii does from here on out. BSU had a nice run, we'll see how the next couple of years go. Utes, well you decide.

Now BCS teams don't always stay on top either, but when they fall they are still BCS teams.

If our future is based on playing 10 non-BCS teams a year, the odds are very good we are going to be playing mainly mediocre teams. The product, on field games and games for TV are going to be mainly mediocre.

Well I am more encouraged by Holmoe speak than Bronco speak. Since I am not a great interpreter, I will just have to go on what Bronco said and hope he doesn't mean it literally.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think the scheduling of BSU for 4 years is not in addition to two BCS teams, but as a replacement for a BCS team. I would love to see BSU on the schedule plus two BCS teams, that would certainly help me to feel better about what the future scheduling philosophy is.

The price on those tickets would be full price. It makes my point. People just aren't that interested in at least half of the home games coming up next year.

I agree that the numbers can be skewed, but why would I take them with a grain of salt? We live and die by our call center data. It's gone over with a fine tooth comb daily. We get the pulse of our customers through that data. And over a six month trend, with commercials telling me to call DTV and Dish, and missing another football season, under 3,500 calls made is screaming scary data if you are Craig Thompson. That data dictates where money is spent. Additional training, additional scripting, commericals, web spends, etc. If you take that with a grain of salt you're sticking your head in the sand. That's what the MWC has done throughout this entire ordeal.

exactly. The satellites were never the bad guys here.

Directv owns the Big 10 network.

'Taken with a grain of salt' meaning there are many factors involved that can affect the overall impact of a deal such as the Mtn.

Of the 100,000 people 'interested' in a certain channel (the number pulled from where the sun don't shine, for use in this argument), what percentage actually make the call to tell you how they feel? Let's just assume it's 10% (which is probably an overestimation, IMO). Now, how many of that 10% are able to find the RIGHT number to call, and then actually get through to the right location where they can give their information?

Then, you're relying on the person taking the data (I'll leave it to you to determine how often a 'mistake' is made in this case) to do so correctly.


Lastly, factor in the fact that MANY potential customers have given up by this point (persistence is NOT most American's strong suit), and I think you'll find far more subscriptions brought about by the Mtn than were indicated by the number of requests.

That is what I meant by 'grain of salt'.