...is looking into the possibility of establishing their own network.

This could leave voids on FSN that need filling.

The Pac-10 currently spends a lot of time on FSN-SW, FSN-Arizona, and FSN-Northwest.

If the Pac-10 does establish their own network (which I hope happens), FSN and the WAC just may partner up.

The WAC's "National" carrier is the ESPN family, while some "Regional" games are on Altitude Sports.

If the WAC plays its cards right, the line-up could look like this:

National coverage: ESPN Family

Regional coverage: FSN

Regional coverage: Altitude Sports

Local coverage: Local carrier

The opportunities are there. Now can the WAC exploit the openings?

(05-20-2009 04:52 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  ...is looking into the possibility of establishing their own network.

This could leave voids on FSN that need filling.

The Pac-10 currently spends a lot of time on FSN-SW, FSN-Arizona, and FSN-Northwest.

If the Pac-10 does establish their own network (which I hope happens), FSN and the WAC just may partner up.

The WAC's "National" carrier is the ESPN family, while some "Regional" games are on Altitude Sports.

If the WAC plays its cards right, the line-up could look like this:

National coverage: ESPN Family

Regional coverage: FSN

Regional coverage: Altitude Sports

Local coverage: Local carrier

The opportunities are there. Now can the WAC exploit the openings?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the current deal between the PAC 10 and Fox Sports does not expire until 2012. That is three years from now by my math.

Also, as I understand it the discussion of the PAC 10 having their own TV network is TRULY in it's "infancy" stage. It has a VERY long way to go before it MAY (or may not) come to fruition.

Frankly I'd be all for it.........just as you are. But at this point it's all conjecture and speculation.

Yep, expires in 2012.

I think if the WAC plays its cards right, it could be on FSN before 2012, even if the Pac-10 doesn't split.

I don't have all the FSN sports networks, but I have FSW, and it looks to me like they could use more content. I can imagine how bone dry FSN-NW and FSN-Arizona are.

FSN-Arizona already picks up some NMSU games and FSW-2 used to carry Hawaii games prior to Herman Failure becoming Hawaii's AD.

If the WAC can sign a deal up to 2012, and play 6 to 8 "Regional" games a year, and include baseball and women's sports, that would be awesome.

...and if the Pac-10 decides to split in 2012, the WAC can extend its contract with Fox, but for a lot more money...and a lot more games.

Opportunity could be knocking.

Why doesn't Fox Sports just combine some of those channels? Do they really need separate stations for the Northwest, California, and Arizona? It seems to me that those could all be combined into Fox Sports West Coast and make the company's life a whole lot easier. They should be able to do just fine if they only have Fox Sports channels for the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Great Plains, Mountains, and West Coast. Fans would get more variety this way and there would be more quality programming all around.

(05-23-2009 02:25 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  Why doesn't Fox Sports just combine some of those channels? Do they really need separate stations for the Northwest, California, and Arizona? It seems to me that those could all be combined into Fox Sports West Coast and make the company's life a whole lot easier. They should be able to do just fine if they only have Fox Sports channels for the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Great Plains, Mountains, and West Coast. Fans would get more variety this way and there would be more quality programming all around.

I'm a fan of the Fox network, but you're right. They really have their Sports networks all screwed up.

I just don't know what to make of them.

(05-23-2009 03:33 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  

(05-23-2009 02:25 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  Why doesn't Fox Sports just combine some of those channels? Do they really need separate stations for the Northwest, California, and Arizona? It seems to me that those could all be combined into Fox Sports West Coast and make the company's life a whole lot easier. They should be able to do just fine if they only have Fox Sports channels for the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Great Plains, Mountains, and West Coast. Fans would get more variety this way and there would be more quality programming all around.

I'm a fan of the Fox network, but you're right. They really have their Sports networks all screwed up.

I just don't know what to make of them.

I think it's pretty obvious what they are doing. They are catering to each local area as best they can. I know that here in Boise the local cable company (which I no longer subscribe to) carries Fox Sports Northwest. However, after having seen what they carry on it I think it would be much more accurate if they just called it Fox Sports WASHINGTON (only). It's much more of a Seattle area network than anything else.

A perfect example of this was last season when Boise State played AT the University of Oregon and Fox Sports Northwest, which had every right to telecast that game, decided to telecast something like Washington (one of the worst teams in the country last year) vs. Portland State. Or something like that. Great decision making by those folks. Don't ya think?

...and this is what drives me crazy about the Fox sports networks.

I have Dish Network, and I get FSN and FSW. I don't get Fox-AZ, or NW. But I get Altitude Sports.

Altitude Sports is more "Regional" now that both dish companies carry the network. FSN-Arizona and NW are more like "local" channels.

The WAC doesn't need more "local" carriers. We need a "Regional" carrier. So...it would kinda look like this:

ESPN - "National"

Fox-SW - "Regional"

Altitude Sports - "Regional"

Fox-Arizona - "Local"

Fox-NW - "Local"

Hummmm?

(05-24-2009 04:41 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  ...and this is what drives me crazy about the Fox sports networks.

I have Dish Network, and I get FSN and FSW. I don't get Fox-AZ, or NW. But I get Altitude Sports.

Altitude Sports is more "Regional" now that both dish companies carry the network. FSN-Arizona and NW are more like "local" channels.

The WAC doesn't need more "local" carriers. We need a "Regional" carrier. So...it would kinda look like this:

ESPN - "National"

Fox-SW - "Regional"

Altitude Sports - "Regional"

Fox-Arizona - "Local"

Fox-NW - "Local"

Hummmm?

I am not certain that I can agree with your statement that "The WAC doesn't need more local carriers". I guess my uncertainty comes about because I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. Right now, as of this moment in time, Boise State does NOT have a "local" TV contract for the 2009 football season. The previous contract with local TV station KTVB here in Boise (NBC affiliate - Channel 7 in Boise, ID.) will expire next month (June 2009) and they have not reached a new agreement. Boise State has already signed an agreement with a national marketing company for the television rights but that agreement does not begin until 2010, i.e., AFTER this year's football season. So we here in Boise, at the very least, are all for "more" local carriers at least for this year's seven football games that won't be on ESPN or ESPN II this year.

Also, I'm all for ALL of the teams in the W.A.C. having local TV contracts. And it is my understanding that some of the W.A.C. schools do NOT have any local TV contracts. The University of Idaho being one of them. Additionally having a local TV contract doesn't (at all) exlude one's team from getting national exposure (or regional). Boise State is the classic example of that. Boise State has ALWAYS had a local TV contract with one of the three primary local TV stations (and all three have done it) but that doesn't stop Boise State from having as many as seven games being telecasted nationally by ESPN or ESPN II.

Looks like Idaho would kill two birds with one stone if the WAC were able to pull off a deal with FSN. They'd gain a "Local" carrier that doubles as a "Regional" carrier. This could be the case as well for NMSU with FSN-Arizona.

Sure hope the WAC is working the angles to land FSN.

(05-23-2009 04:45 PM)BroncoSaurus Wrote:  A perfect example of this was last season when Boise State played AT the University of Oregon and Fox Sports Northwest, which had every right to telecast that game, decided to telecast something like Washington (one of the worst teams in the country last year) vs. Portland State. Or something like that. Great decision making by those folks. Don't ya think?

FSN Northwest did not have the rights to televise that game. Once FSN passed on the game on a national basis, the rights fell to Oregon's local TV rights holder, Comcast Sportsnet Northwest. CSN NW covers Oregon specifically and parts of of SE Washington.

(05-23-2009 03:33 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  

(05-23-2009 02:25 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  Why doesn't Fox Sports just combine some of those channels? Do they really need separate stations for the Northwest, California, and Arizona? It seems to me that those could all be combined into Fox Sports West Coast and make the company's life a whole lot easier. They should be able to do just fine if they only have Fox Sports channels for the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Great Plains, Mountains, and West Coast. Fans would get more variety this way and there would be more quality programming all around.

I'm a fan of the Fox network, but you're right. They really have their Sports networks all screwed up.

I just don't know what to make of them.

They are specialized by region because they carry different regional content. They can't offer a Dodgers game in the Pacific Northwest and they can't offer a Mariners game in SoCal. They aren't screwed up, they are following the rules set forth by the various leagues that they hold rights to.

As for WAC FB on FSN, don't hold your breath. FSN Arizona is the only one that I know of carrying any WAC content as they carry New Mexico St. games from the Aggie Vision productions.

Finally, the belief that a PAC-10 Network will create room on FSN is foolish, much like some of the MAC folks who thought a Big Ten Network would open up slots for the MAC (outside of a small syndication package, it didn't). A PAC-10 Network, if sponsored by FSN, won't replace the national games on FSN. It will take the some of the non-televised games and find a place for those.

FSN West/Prime Ticket could use more content? They barely have room for what they show now:

Dodgers (PT)
Angels (FSW)
Clippers (PT)
Lakers (FSW)
Ducks (PT)
Kings (FSW)
Chivas USA & LA Galaxy (both)
UCLA & USC MBK and FB (PT, some on FSW)
Big West Basketball (PT)
WCC games from Pepperdine and Loyola Marymount (both)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pac-10 already has TV deals with:

1. ABC
2. ESPN
3. Versus
4. FSN
5. FSW
6. FSN-Northwest
7. FSN-Arizona
8. Prime Ticket
9. Comcast Sports Net - Bay Area
10. OSN

Are there any others?

I think if a Pac-10 network is added, something has to give.

If USC and UCLA are the only D1-a football teams that play on FSW, and they have to split time with PT, ABC, Versus, ESPN..., I just don't know how adding the Pac-10 Network doesn't take content away from Fox or any other network the Pac-10 is associated with?

The Pac-10 wants the Pac-10 Network because they want to make the BIG BUCKS. They're talking about a launch in 2012...when their FSN contract expires. If the Pac-10 Network isn't going to take content away from the FSN networks, why is the year 2012 mentioned?

If the Pac-10 network is launched, I see voids being created.

I hope the Pac-10 Network happens.

I have no idea where you came up with this version of what happened....but it simply isn't true. The local news media here in Boise was all over FOX SPORTS NW prior to that game because FOX Sports NW didn't televise last year's game between Boise State and Oregon. Fox Sports NW was ridiculed repeatedly for their decision here in the Boise area.

It made very little difference to the local residents here in Boise tho.....the game was televised locally here in Boise by KTVB, the local N.B.C. affiliate here in Boise, ID., and the television station that had the rights to televise Boise State football games last fall.

However, now that I think about it I believe the game that actually WAS televised on that day was a game between Washington State (again one of the worst teams in the country) and Portland State (a Div I-AA team - I refuse to use the "new" labels). That game last year between Boise State and Oregon took place on Saturday Sep. 20, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. M.S.T. (12:30 p.m. P.S.T.). And the University of Washington did not have a football game that weekend. But WSU did host Portland State that same day. And THAT was the game that Fox Sports Northwest DID televise rather than pick up their option to televise the Boise State vs. Oregon game.

(05-28-2009 04:57 PM)BroncoSaurus Wrote:  I have no idea where you came up with this version of what happened....but it simply isn't true. The local news media here in Boise was all over FOX SPORTS NW prior to that game because FOX Sports NW didn't televise last year's game between Boise State and Oregon. Fox Sports NW was ridiculed repeatedly for their decision here in the Boise area.

It made very little difference to the local residents here in Boise tho.....the game was televised locally here in Boise by KTVB, the local N.B.C. affiliate here in Boise, ID., and the television station that had the rights to televise Boise State football games last fall.

However, now that I think about it I believe the game that actually WAS televised on that day was a game between Washington State (again one of the worst teams in the country) and Portland State (a Div I-AA team - I refuse to use the "new" labels). That game last year between Boise State and Oregon took place on Saturday Sep. 20, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. M.S.T. (12:30 p.m. P.S.T.). And the University of Washington did not have a football game that weekend. But WSU did host Portland State that same day. And THAT was the game that Fox Sports Northwest DID televise rather than pick up their option to televise the Boise State vs. Oregon game.

Again, FSN Northwest doesn't have the rights to Oregon FB when ABC/ESPN, FSN on a national basis, and Versus decline to pick up games. Here's a link to the Oregon Sports Network site. Oregon was also the reason the game wasn't shown on ESPN Game Plan. As a PAC-10 team, FSN began getting stricter about local telecasts originating from PAC-10 stadiums being shown on a competing PPV service. That is straight from ESPN.

http://www.oregonsportsnet.com/televisio...ffiliates/

FSN on a national level decided against the Boise St.-Oregon game (dumb in my opinion), not FSN Northwest.

FSN Northwest does have local TV rights to Washington St. and they did air the WSU-Portland St. game at 4pm PT. What you don't remember is that FSN nationally televised the Arizona-UCLA game at 12pm PT, so they did have a game going on while Boise St.-Oregon was being played.

BTW, WSU-PSU was only shown in the NW. The rest of the country was sent Rice at Texas.

http://mattsarzsports.com/2008/week4.html

(05-28-2009 04:29 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pac-10 already has TV deals with:

1. ABC
2. ESPN
3. Versus
4. FSN
5. FSW
6. FSN-Northwest
7. FSN-Arizona
8. Prime Ticket
9. Comcast Sports Net - Bay Area
10. OSN

Are there any others?

I think if a Pac-10 network is added, something has to give.

If USC and UCLA are the only D1-a football teams that play on FSW, and they have to split time with PT, ABC, Versus, ESPN..., I just don't know how adding the Pac-10 Network doesn't take content away from Fox or any other network the Pac-10 is associated with?

The Pac-10 wants the Pac-10 Network because they want to make the BIG BUCKS. They're talking about a launch in 2012...when their FSN contract expires. If the Pac-10 Network isn't going to take content away from the FSN networks, why is the year 2012 mentioned?

If the Pac-10 network is launched, I see voids being created.

I hope the Pac-10 Network happens.

The PAC-10 doesn't have a deal w/Versus. Those are games Versus buys from the FSN inventory. The PAC-10 only has deals with ABC/ESPN (a single contract) and FSN on a national basis. Everything else is at the local level.

Last year, the following PAC-10 games went untelevised

8/30 Idaho at Arizona
9/6 Toledo at Arizona
9/20 San Jose St. at Stanford
10/11 Arizona at Stanford
10/25 Oregon at Arizona St.
11/1 Washington St. at Stanford
11/8 Arizona at Washington St.
11/15 Washington St. at Arizona St.

Put those five games on the PAC-10 network from Versus (UW-Arizona, Or. St.-Washington, USC-Stanford, Oregon St.-Arizona, Oregon-Oregon St.) and you have a decent start. Might have to force the conference schools to give up or limit their number or regional/local games. Also, enforce limits on how many games FSN and ABC/ESPN can take of a team like USC so that a PAC-10 network shows every team at least once. Big Ten has a rule that all teams must have one of their conference games on the Big Ten Network.

(06-03-2009 08:42 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 04:29 PM)jediwarrior Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pac-10 already has TV deals with:

1. ABC
2. ESPN
3. Versus
4. FSN
5. FSW
6. FSN-Northwest
7. FSN-Arizona
8. Prime Ticket
9. Comcast Sports Net - Bay Area
10. OSN

Are there any others?

I think if a Pac-10 network is added, something has to give.

If USC and UCLA are the only D1-a football teams that play on FSW, and they have to split time with PT, ABC, Versus, ESPN..., I just don't know how adding the Pac-10 Network doesn't take content away from Fox or any other network the Pac-10 is associated with?

The Pac-10 wants the Pac-10 Network because they want to make the BIG BUCKS. They're talking about a launch in 2012...when their FSN contract expires. If the Pac-10 Network isn't going to take content away from the FSN networks, why is the year 2012 mentioned?

If the Pac-10 network is launched, I see voids being created.

I hope the Pac-10 Network happens.

The PAC-10 doesn't have a deal w/Versus. Those are games Versus buys from the FSN inventory. The PAC-10 only has deals with ABC/ESPN (a single contract) and FSN on a national basis. Everything else is at the local level.

Last year, the following PAC-10 games went untelevised

8/30 Idaho at Arizona
9/6 Toledo at Arizona
9/20 San Jose St. at Stanford
10/11 Arizona at Stanford
10/25 Oregon at Arizona St.
11/1 Washington St. at Stanford
11/8 Arizona at Washington St.
11/15 Washington St. at Arizona St.

Put those five games on the PAC-10 network from Versus (UW-Arizona, Or. St.-Washington, USC-Stanford, Oregon St.-Arizona, Oregon-Oregon St.) and you have a decent start. Might have to force the conference schools to give up or limit their number or regional/local games. Also, enforce limits on how many games FSN and ABC/ESPN can take of a team like USC so that a PAC-10 network shows every team at least once. Big Ten has a rule that all teams must have one of their conference games on the Big Ten Network.

I'm glad you're on top of this stuff Mattsarz.

I think you're right that the local contracts will have to suffer to feed their Pac-10 network. ...and the Pac-10 Network would be a shell...if USC football isn't part of the Network plan.

USC is what drives the Pac-10.