82SiouxGuy

I haven't heard anything, but I've been out of the loop most of the summer. Too many other things going on, so I haven't talked to many people that might know those kind of things.

An HD program or channel that is shown on a SD broadcast channel will have black space above and below the picture. The HD picture is a different aspect ratio (size) than SD. As southpaw said, almost all of the Fox College Sports channels are SD. You aren't going to get HD quality on a SD broadcast channel. You won't see any of the UND games in HD while watching FCS, unless they decide to put one on an HD channel. If there were other technical problems, I would guess at least some of them may have been caused by the first time using the new equipment.

The people that are paid to make the decisions on broadcasting believe that this was the best option available. These are the same people that set up the deal with FCS. They know a whole lot more about these things than any of us on an internet forum. They believe that selling the rights to Midco was what was best for UND overall. I am going to trust those people, they have done a pretty good job so far. There are a lot of options for getting UND sports, people that are interested will get access in some way.

I understand needing a new receiver for any TV that they want to have access to the HD channels. But I don't think the customers would need an HD receiver on every TV to get the basic channels. Are you advocating that Midco shouldn't have gone to HD? HD seems to be what has driven much of the change from last year. I'm pretty sure that most people want the HD signal. Also, the channel is available in North Dakota, South Dakota and part of Minnesota, not just in North Dakota. At least be honest about that part.

The different delivery method may be because of the change to HD. Or it may be that Midco is trying to save money by eliminating a delivery system that they don't use for anything else. That change in delivery system does not require that the cable systems put Midco Sports Net on a different tier. That is the choice of the cable system. HD may require the use of different receivers, but the cable system could still put the channel on a lesser package. The cable systems are using the addition of Midco Sports Net as an excuse to increase prices so they can make more money, and are blaming the entire price increase on Midco.

That was my feeling, also. These independent cable companies are using the Midco Sports Channel excuse to push customers to a higher level. And customers blame Midco.

This sounds like a different problem than what Midco is charging. This issue sounds like it is caused by the conversion to HD. And possibly by a change in how they are sending the signal. I am definitely not an expert on cable television, but I still think that the locals are, at least in part, using the situation to force people to upgrade. I'm not sure that Midco is telling these companies what tier the channel has to be on. I get that the customers probably need a HD receiver to get the HD signal, and that might be an upgrade. Midco is probably sending the signal in a different way because of the HD. Those are the hazards of changing to a new technology. But digital signals allow the cable companies to customize their offerings even easier. They should be able to offer the Midco Sports Channel without having to include it in a Digital HD package. Midco offers 3 versions of the sports channel with its Limited package, which is 1 step up from the real Basic cable package. So I understand the $5 per receiver charge, but not the $20 for a special tier. If the cable companies wanted, they could set up a lesser tier that included Midco and maybe something else for $5 a month or at least a lesser amount than $20. Most of this rate increase that both of you are talking about goes back to the individual cable companies, unless Midco is forcing them to put the channel on a special digital tier. I have strong doubts that Midco is forcing them to do that.

ESPN's number has gone up. It doesn't seem like that long ago they were getting around $2 per customer. I think it was in that range when the Twins were trying to start Victory.

Again, reading it is completely different from interjecting yourself into the conversation so you can try to protect the image of the football program that you worship on another school's forum. Do you guys at BSville have some kind of schedule set up to monitor this site in case someone is mean to NDSUAAS?

Even less likely than the IPF.

There is a whole lot of difference between checking out the forums and a need to constantly interject. What kind of inferiority complex does it take to have to constantly stick your nose into conversations to protect your school about some slight, no matter how small. The best is when some of you go on forums for schools that UND is playing, just to put down UND. It makes your entire fanbase look small and petty. You and many of your pals have developed a real reputation in college athletics, and it isn't a good reputation.

By the way, you may not have noticed that this is a UND forum. If you don't want to hear the opinions of UND fans there is a simple solution, don't read the forum. Go live in your own little world down at BSville. Then you don't have to listen to what UND fans have to say. I don't think that a lot of UND fans stick their nose in BSville, not like the number of BSvillers that keep showing up here.

Only against trolls.

Not nearly as selective or as loud as fans from the southern Valley. You hold grudges like petulant children.

Since this is the only report I've read or heard of anyone doing such a thing, I'm guessing that Midco isn't charging $25 per subscriber for the channel. I would be surprised if they are charging $2.50 per subscriber. I hope that customers aren't believing them.

Do you always live in the past and hold grudges. The whining from Fargo gets tiresome. That was a decade ago.

The cable company that is charging people to upgrade to a higher tier at $25/month is at fault for taking advantage of the situation. That is not Midco's fault. As far as the exposure, that issue has been discussed to death. Much of the exposure you talk about was lost because of the NCHC contract with CBS Sports. UND and Midco have worked on supplying alternatives, and will continue to work on the issue. No one that complains about the change to Midco has ever addressed the $200,000 per year that Midco is paying UND, money that the athletic department didn't have before. If you don't believe that the money was a significant factor in the decision, you don't know a lot about the finances of college athletics. And they don't address the addition of HD this year, something that wouldn't have happened with the old set-up. Besides, this is the second year of the deal. The only people losing access to the games this year are people that used to watch on FSC and don't have access to Midco. That isn't a huge number within the state of North Dakota. Many of them probably have access by going to a bar or another location in their area. It is a bigger factor in other parts of the country.

Shawn is correct, there was no contract. The schools had always played as a part of the same conference. They were negotiating a contract to continue playing after NDSUAAS left Division II. That is when Roger decided to stop playing. He had legitimate reasons to stop playing the football games. But our guest from the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences is wrong when he tries to compare the situation with Montana State. NDSUAAS had a contract with Montana State. MSU lived up to the contract by using a buy-out option that was in the contract. NDSUAAS did not have a contract with UND, and UND decided not to finish negotiating that contract with NDSUAAS. The only similarities are that MSU and UND disappointed the people at NDSUAAS, and now the fans at NDSUAAS (and Gene Taylor) are holding a grudge.

Most money donated is targeted to something. They can't move money donated for one thing and use it for something else. It is rare that significant size donations are given to a general fund that can be used anywhere the University wants to use them.

HDMI is by far the best. It will run both audio and video through the TV. VGA plus an audio out from the computer headphone plug in to the TV audio input would also work, but the quality isn't as good.

The offer was sent to Taylor in or before June of 2012. Faison said within the past couple of months that the offer was still open, but that schedules were starting to fill up for future years.

There are a lot of ways for Midco to charge for their product and for the cable companies to pass along those charges. Cable companies can just increase general rates, sell the sports channel on its own, set up tiers, add it to another tier and increase the price for that tier, etc. I would be shocked if Midco is going to get $10 per subscriber. Cable companies weren't going to pay $2 per subscriber for networks like ESPN, they probably aren't going to pay it for Midco Sports Network. If cable companies are charging $10 for new tiers, then they are taking advantage of the situation themselves to make more money. I highly doubt that Midco is getting anywhere close to half of the $10 you quoted. But people are going to blame Midco for that whole increase whether Midco gets $0.25 of it or the whole amount. Also, you mention that all of this is going to Midco profits. As I mentioned earlier, Midco has added HD production for this year. That is an expensive proposition. It involves all new equipment. It is also ahead of their original timeline. So they have plenty of bills to pay besides the normal expenses of putting on a television broadcast. I'm sure that Midco hopes, even plans, to make money on these broadcasts. But don't think for a second that increased subscriber costs are going right to the bottom line for Midco.

Sounds like the free market system. It costs money to buy all new broadcast equipment in HD.

I am not involved with either company, so I have no idea what either side is asking for. But my general impression is that Cable One doesn't want to have much to do with Midcontinent. They didn't like broadcasting the games before when they were free. They often added games late in the week when customers put on enough pressure. They aren't interested in working with Midco and they aren't interested in paying for it. It doesn't seem like there is a lot of negotiating room if that is their position.

There are a lot of benefits to keeping it in house. But it is a very specialized field and things are changing quickly, so I think that most schools would be willing to give up a lot of that control for working with an established firm and getting guaranteed money. You don't see very many schools doing television in house on a large scale. Most in house television is very localized. Radio seems to be easier for schools to handle in house.