PAC12 Network Assessment....seems like "95" was correct

[SCglory]

Well, it's been some time since this topic was covered, in terms of strategic possibilities, and maybe some of you followed or remembered 95's excellent background expertise for this topic. Seems like his skepticism was well-warranted. In a HIGHLY unscientific journey, I went to other P12 sites, on R and other brands, and the consensus (if that is what it is) seems to be a general dissatisfaction. Of course, one may claim that those that comment in the first place are more likely to BE unsatisfied customers, but anyway, the general scuttlebutt seems to be that:
* not enough football coverage
* we are too PC in our coverage
* we need a football guy in charge (see 1 & 2)
* (and we all know the network's failure to get you know what in the fold.....

Thoughts?

 

[Coug95man2]

What'd I say, again?

 

[SCglory]

What'd I say, again?

Well, you focused on the technical aspects of the nascent operation, and you expressed concern that they had the chops to handle it. I extrapolated that to wonder about their strategy and philosophy of coverage. When one compares the SEC, B12, B10, and the P12, it seems clear to me that our conference is the most "PC" of them all....which means that programming decisions--with a conference Prez who earned his stripes in tennis--could suffer from a desire to be "fair" over simply covering what people want to see. I mean, who in the world would sit down and watch women's sports instead of men's? They're boring and stacked (did I say that?) with inferior athletes. So....I have read a fair # of gripes that state that our network seems to cover non-football "events" more than other networks do....or, put bluntly: why would one EVER have women's BB on during prime time viewing? It seems like your concerns about staffing and start up costs were accurate, and that we may have done it on the cheap as well.....

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Well...I really like women's tennis with those short skirts. Just sayin'...