I don't remember I posted what I got in the Pub last week or the week before. (I can't remember)
...and SEC is available outside SEC states only with Multisport, right?
Heck no, we all have to pay for it. They need to hurry and add it so I can delete it from my favorites and get that out of the way
So you wont be watching A&M and USC? Pretty significant early season game, and i figure it would be of interest to most any football fan.
That will be better.Nope, I have no interest in that over hyped snoozefest and I will be at the Tulane/Tulsa game.
The way I look at it is my money will be going to a school I choose to support and not an over hyped network I'm forced to pay for
If it was a network strictly for your favorite team would you be OK with it? I know a lot of people like yourself like to get upset over these sports channels but it's one of the few ways to deliver them to a wide variety people for an affordable price.
Have you been seeing their new commercials with Matthew Stafford? Pretty typical, corny commercials.
No I would not be OK with it. I don't mind the conference network channels. I just don't believe they should be in any base packages unless they consider them an RSN for a specific area and even then I'm not really a fan. All of the conference channels should be in the Multi Sport package outside of their home territory. I don't care if its $1.50 or .15 cents. I should have the choice if I want to pay for yet another channel with programming or teams that 90% of the people outside of a given territory have no interest in.
There should not be any individual team channels (hint shorthorns, Yankees, Dodgers and other).
I actually agree with you but I'm one of the people who are willing to pay more to watch the sports I want. There are a lot of people that are not willing to pay, or can't afford to spend the extra money to get the package that has sports in it. I get these complaints from customers a lot and they always talk about the good old days when they could just watch the Hawkeyes play on our local CBS network for free. By having some of these sports channels in the Top 120 it allows a wide variety of people to be able to watch some sports without having to pay for an additional package.
I'm not saying this to argue, like I said, I agree with you. I'm just saying this to show there are two different ways to look at this. The networks that own these channels want as many eyes seeing their channel as possible.
That argument/viewpoint could be used for any channel with slight wording change.No I would not be OK with it. I don't mind the conference network channels. I just don't believe they should be in any base packages unless they consider them an RSN for a specific area and even then I'm not really a fan. All of the conference channels should be in the Multi Sport package outside of their home territory. I don't care if its $1.50 or .15 cents. I should have the choice if I want to pay for yet another channel with programming or teams that 90% of the people outside of a given territory have no interest in.
There should not be any individual team channels (hint shorthorns, Yankees, Dodgers and other).
Those 60 probably won't get the ratings of any higher priced sports channels either, which the sec network may or may not be.
They aren't charging an arm and a leg for espn because nobody watches.
They aren't asking a high price for a network that just covers the sec because they think there is no demand.
Its as simple concept even if I think we all pay too much for tv. I May be a hypocrite on it though. I think it costs too much and I send them a check every month.