Long term if you can't get the big fish(Texas) then Houston & TCU would be solid secondary adds. Even if the market penetration is limited primarily to each schools metro area then you are still adding 2 regions that will be close to size of Chicagoland by 2030.

(09-08-2016 09:34 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  How do you determine if the ratings were because of Huston or a highly ranked Oklahoma team? People say Princeton gets great ratings when they play Duke in the NCAAT too. While this game certainly looks good for Houston, you have to dig deeper and look at multiple factors. Captain Obvious singing off!

Well obviously it is a combination of the two. But considering the ratings in Houston were 78% higher than the best B12 game received in the market last year between Oklahoma and Texas (OU was 4-0 and Top 10 at the time but Texas was only 1-3) would seem to indicate solid support for the Cougars in Houston when they are good.

Again, not advocating for them to the ACC. As others have stated there is no rush for the league to consider expanding again at this time. But I think Houston has made a good case for the B12 to expand with them.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-08-2016 11:16 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Long term if you can't get the big fish(Texas) then Houston & TCU would be solid secondary adds. Even if the market penetration is limited primarily to each schools metro area then you are still adding 2 regions that will be close to size of Chicagoland by 2030.

If, and only IF, Texas came to the ACC in an ND type deal. But that doesn't seem likely.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-08-2016 12:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:16 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Long term if you can't get the big fish(Texas) then Houston & TCU would be solid secondary adds. Even if the market penetration is limited primarily to each schools metro area then you are still adding 2 regions that will be close to size of Chicagoland by 2030.

If, and only IF, Texas came to the ACC in an ND type deal. But that doesn't seem likely.

Cheers,
Neil

At this point, the B12 is under a grant of rights agreement until the end of the 2024-25 season. It is possible that this would be extended until 2031 or 2032 as part of the ongoing B12 expansion. The question for the ACC whether there is something that it could do right now to increase its television revenue stream, particularly with the launch of the ACC Network scheduled for 2019.

The only candidates on the table would schools that are not members of P5 conferences, primarily members of the AAC. The goal would be to add TV revenues in excess of its TV payout. The B12 can do this because it previously negotiated to get a pro rata increase in revenues for any expansion and because it is going to phase in payouts to its new members. The ACC does not have this same opportunity. Really, the strategy would be similar to the B1G's addition of Rutgers and Maryland, i.e., to add more TV HH paying full price for the conference network.

In this regard, the only possible football schools that could make sense are UH (Houston DMA = 2.4 million TV HH), SMU (Dallas DMA = 2.7 million TV HH), Temple (Philadelphia DMA = 2.9 million TV HH), UConn (Hartford = .96 million TV HH, plus an enhanced presence in NYC DMA = 7.4 million TV HH).

The BTN charges $1.00 per subscriber per month in the conference footprint. The SECN charges $1.30. ESPN is in 80% of TV HH nationally, let's assume the ACCN would be in 70% of homes inthe conference footprint, which is consistent with the SECN's national penetration rate. Taking UH and SMU for a minute, you'd have 5.1 million TV HH x $1.00 (the BTN rate) x 12 months x 70% = $43 million per year. Some of that would have to go to ESPN, of course but this is in the ballpark of being accretive, even ignoring the value that it might bring to the other parts of the ESPN contract.

Some intangible matters to consider. First, going to 16 football schools would almost certainly require going to a 9 game conference schedule. Also, even going to a 20 game conference basketball schedule, the rotation of home and home games would be over more years than it is today. On the plus side, Dallas and Houston are incredible football recruiting markets and ACC schools would have a better chance to pick up a piece of those markets.

(09-08-2016 10:58 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 09:34 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  How do you determine if the ratings were because of Huston or a highly ranked Oklahoma team? People say Princeton gets great ratings when they play Duke in the NCAAT too. While this game certainly looks good for Houston, you have to dig deeper and look at multiple factors. Captain Obvious singing off!

you could say that about any program....

If LSU didn't play an SEC schedule, instead playing a Sun Belt schedule, don't you think that would affect their attendance/ratings, etc.?

Yes, it would. That doesn't instantly turn the Sun Belt team into an SEC prospect. My point was that it is difficult to decipher the ratings.

(09-08-2016 01:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:16 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Long term if you can't get the big fish(Texas) then Houston & TCU would be solid secondary adds. Even if the market penetration is limited primarily to each schools metro area then you are still adding 2 regions that will be close to size of Chicagoland by 2030.

If, and only IF, Texas came to the ACC in an ND type deal. But that doesn't seem likely.

Cheers,
Neil

At this point, the B12 is under a grant of rights agreement until the end of the 2024-25 season. It is possible that this would be extended until 2031 or 2032 as part of the ongoing B12 expansion. The question for the ACC whether there is something that it could do right now to increase its television revenue stream, particularly with the launch of the ACC Network scheduled for 2019.

The only candidates on the table would schools that are not members of P5 conferences, primarily members of the AAC. The goal would be to add TV revenues in excess of its TV payout. The B12 can do this because it previously negotiated to get a pro rata increase in revenues for any expansion and because it is going to phase in payouts to its new members. The ACC does not have this same opportunity. Really, the strategy would be similar to the B1G's addition of Rutgers and Maryland, i.e., to add more TV HH paying full price for the conference network.

In this regard, the only possible football schools that could make sense are UH (Houston DMA = 2.4 million TV HH), SMU (Dallas DMA = 2.7 million TV HH), Temple (Philadelphia DMA = 2.9 million TV HH), UConn (Hartford = .96 million TV HH, plus an enhanced presence in NYC DMA = 7.4 million TV HH).

The BTN charges $1.00 per subscriber per month in the conference footprint. The SECN charges $1.30. ESPN is in 80% of TV HH nationally, let's assume the ACCN would be in 70% of homes inthe conference footprint, which is consistent with the SECN's national penetration rate. Taking UH and SMU for a minute, you'd have 5.1 million TV HH x $1.00 (the BTN rate) x 12 months x 70% = $43 million per year. Some of that would have to go to ESPN, of course but this is in the ballpark of being accretive, even ignoring the value that it might bring to the other parts of the ESPN contract.

Some intangible matters to consider. First, going to 16 football schools would almost certainly require going to a 9 game conference schedule. Also, even going to a 20 game conference basketball schedule, the rotation of home and home games would be over more years than it is today. On the plus side, Dallas and Houston are incredible football recruiting markets and ACC schools would have a better chance to pick up a piece of those markets.

Ultimately, from the ACC's perspective the hoped for end game appears to be Texas, with PSU out of the picture now with Maryland in the B1G. This seems to be the case since the ACC has only spoken with three big programs this decade - ND, PSU, and Texas that we know about. ND is in as a partial and the best the league could likely get from them in the future is 6 games instead of 5, but even that is debatable. PSU isn't coming. So that leaves Texas, and at best, imho, that would be with an ND type deal.

As already stated elsewhere in this thread, the ACC is getting a network. It doesn't need to expand now. And wouldn't taking Houston in the hopes it will mean network $$$ be questionable at best considering the fact that we have all seen how WVU has struggled in the B12? The Cougars aren't as good as the Eers were back then. And if they perform mediocre in the ACC, what's to say there is enough interest in them to even get an ACC Network on in Houston? It's not as though the area is psyched to see non-Houston ACC games in that area.

Of all the teams you cite above, the only guarantee of a network getting on in their region and making the ACCN some $$$ is UConn. No question about it. You have an entire state that is pro-UConn, regional rivalries with BC and SU (from their fan base perspective if not acknowledged by the BC and SU fans), and strong interest in the ACC, especially if UConn were a member. If the ACC isn't going to invite UConn, how likely are they to invite any of the others?

The only hope I see for any Texas based team in the ACC is for the Longhorns to say, we will come to the ACC on an ND type deal but only if we have at least two teams from the state of Texas. Which means that the B12 GOR is no longer in effect and the two would come from Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston.

Baylor is a non-starter and SMU hasn't proven themselves, imho.

Anyway, this is all summer type posting. It's football season. Let's talk some football.

Cheers,
Neil

As Orange estimated adding Houston & SMU would generate approximately $43 for the ACCN, or about $1.35 per 16 teams after ESPN taking half. I wouldn't suggest SMU however since they haven't displayed the same positives as Houston has recently. Adding Texas to the ACCN footprint could prove to be very lucrative, especially with Texas involved. It's something the ACC should consider.

West: Texas, TCU, Houston, Louisville, Miami, WF

East: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, VT, NC St, UCONN(?)

South: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia

Everyone plays 5 division games, 1 rival & 1 from each division for 8 games. ND could play an entire division (6 games) & have a shot the ACC CG.

(09-09-2016 10:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  As Orange estimated... Adding [the state of] Texas to the ACCN footprint could prove to be very lucrative [about $43M/year].

The Longhorns could do that all by themselves. In fact, you could give ESPN half of that $43M (or $21.5M), give Texas their LHN money ($15M), and still have $6.5M to distribute (about $400,000 per team). The key would be convincing Texas to accept less than what they are used to...

(09-09-2016 10:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Everyone plays 5 division games, 1 rival & 1 from each division for 8 games. ND could play an entire division (6 games) & have a shot the ACC CG.

So one team gets to play fewer conference games than the rest and still be a "full" member? No thanks!

(09-09-2016 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 10:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  As Orange estimated... Adding [the state of] Texas to the ACCN footprint could prove to be very lucrative [about $43M/year].

The Longhorns could do that all by themselves. In fact, you could give ESPN half of that $43M (or $21.5M), give Texas their LHN money ($15M), and still have $6.5M to distribute (about $400,000 per team). The key would be convincing Texas to accept less than what they are used to...

(09-09-2016 10:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Everyone plays 5 division games, 1 rival & 1 from each division for 8 games. ND could play an entire division (6 games) & have a shot the ACC CG.

So one team gets to play fewer conference games than the rest and still be a "full" member? No thanks!

That's why I said the ACC should consider expanding into Texas. It could prove to be very lucrative.

As for ND, I mentioned that as a possibility & not as an absolute. Ideally ND would be in instead of UCONN or anyone else. With everyone playing ND twice every 6 years, is 2 games that big of a deal? Realistically ND is far more ACC than independent now, they just won't admit it.

(09-09-2016 10:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  As Orange estimated adding Houston & SMU would generate approximately $43 for the ACCN, or about $1.35 per 16 teams after ESPN taking half. I wouldn't suggest SMU however since they haven't displayed the same positives as Houston has recently. Adding Texas to the ACCN footprint could prove to be very lucrative, especially with Texas involved. It's something the ACC should consider.

West: Texas, TCU, Houston, Louisville, Miami, WF

East: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, VT, NC St, UCONN(?)

South: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia

Everyone plays 5 division games, 1 rival & 1 from each division for 8 games. ND could play an entire division (6 games) & have a shot the ACC CG.

The ACC network isn't getting an extra $43 mm for SMU + Houston.

(09-09-2016 12:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 10:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  As Orange estimated adding Houston & SMU would generate approximately $43 for the ACCN, or about $1.35 per 16 teams after ESPN taking half. I wouldn't suggest SMU however since they haven't displayed the same positives as Houston has recently. Adding Texas to the ACCN footprint could prove to be very lucrative, especially with Texas involved. It's something the ACC should consider.

West: Texas, TCU, Houston, Louisville, Miami, WF

East: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, VT, NC St, UCONN(?)

South: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia

Everyone plays 5 division games, 1 rival & 1 from each division for 8 games. ND could play an entire division (6 games) & have a shot the ACC CG.

The ACC network isn't getting an extra $43 mm for SMU + Houston.

True, I love the ACC just the way it is. The ACC is in good enough shape that it should wait and see if any P5 teams shake loose. And I mean P5 teams that will really make a difference.

(09-08-2016 01:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:16 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Long term if you can't get the big fish(Texas) then Houston & TCU would be solid secondary adds. Even if the market penetration is limited primarily to each schools metro area then you are still adding 2 regions that will be close to size of Chicagoland by 2030.

If, and only IF, Texas came to the ACC in an ND type deal. But that doesn't seem likely.

Cheers,
Neil

At this point, the B12 is under a grant of rights agreement until the end of the 2024-25 season. It is possible that this would be extended until 2031 or 2032 as part of the ongoing B12 expansion. The question for the ACC whether there is something that it could do right now to increase its television revenue stream, particularly with the launch of the ACC Network scheduled for 2019.

The only candidates on the table would schools that are not members of P5 conferences, primarily members of the AAC. The goal would be to add TV revenues in excess of its TV payout. The B12 can do this because it previously negotiated to get a pro rata increase in revenues for any expansion and because it is going to phase in payouts to its new members. The ACC does not have this same opportunity. Really, the strategy would be similar to the B1G's addition of Rutgers and Maryland, i.e., to add more TV HH paying full price for the conference network.

In this regard, the only possible football schools that could make sense are UH (Houston DMA = 2.4 million TV HH), SMU (Dallas DMA = 2.7 million TV HH), Temple (Philadelphia DMA = 2.9 million TV HH), UConn (Hartford = .96 million TV HH, plus an enhanced presence in NYC DMA = 7.4 million TV HH).

The BTN charges $1.00 per subscriber per month in the conference footprint. The SECN charges $1.30. ESPN is in 80% of TV HH nationally, let's assume the ACCN would be in 70% of homes inthe conference footprint, which is consistent with the SECN's national penetration rate. Taking UH and SMU for a minute, you'd have 5.1 million TV HH x $1.00 (the BTN rate) x 12 months x 70% = $43 million per year. Some of that would have to go to ESPN, of course but this is in the ballpark of being accretive, even ignoring the value that it might bring to the other parts of the ESPN contract.

Some intangible matters to consider. First, going to 16 football schools would almost certainly require going to a 9 game conference schedule. Also, even going to a 20 game conference basketball schedule, the rotation of home and home games would be over more years than it is today. On the plus side, Dallas and Houston are incredible football recruiting markets and ACC schools would have a better chance to pick up a piece of those markets.

1) The 70% estimate that you just used bottoms out when you add schools near large population bases w/o string fan support. Revenue is a product of price and quantity. If few people are willing to pay for the product, the quantity is close to zero. And price is determined by supply and demand, so if there's no demand, the price would be close to zero as well. Fans matter, not markets.

2) You forgot to net your numbers against the revenue that the ACCN would be able to bring in from that area w/ our present configuration.

The end result is a significant overstatement of their value.

(09-09-2016 12:46 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 12:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 10:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  As Orange estimated adding Houston & SMU would generate approximately $43 for the ACCN, or about $1.35 per 16 teams after ESPN taking half. I wouldn't suggest SMU however since they haven't displayed the same positives as Houston has recently. Adding Texas to the ACCN footprint could prove to be very lucrative, especially with Texas involved. It's something the ACC should consider.

West: Texas, TCU, Houston, Louisville, Miami, WF

East: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, VT, NC St, UCONN(?)

South: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia

Everyone plays 5 division games, 1 rival & 1 from each division for 8 games. ND could play an entire division (6 games) & have a shot the ACC CG.

The ACC network isn't getting an extra $43 mm for SMU + Houston.

True, I love the ACC just the way it is. The ACC is in good enough shape that it should wait and see if any P5 teams shake loose. And I mean P5 teams that will really make a difference.

+1

(09-09-2016 12:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 01:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:16 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Long term if you can't get the big fish(Texas) then Houston & TCU would be solid secondary adds. Even if the market penetration is limited primarily to each schools metro area then you are still adding 2 regions that will be close to size of Chicagoland by 2030.

If, and only IF, Texas came to the ACC in an ND type deal. But that doesn't seem likely.

Cheers,
Neil

At this point, the B12 is under a grant of rights agreement until the end of the 2024-25 season. It is possible that this would be extended until 2031 or 2032 as part of the ongoing B12 expansion. The question for the ACC whether there is something that it could do right now to increase its television revenue stream, particularly with the launch of the ACC Network scheduled for 2019.

The only candidates on the table would schools that are not members of P5 conferences, primarily members of the AAC. The goal would be to add TV revenues in excess of its TV payout. The B12 can do this because it previously negotiated to get a pro rata increase in revenues for any expansion and because it is going to phase in payouts to its new members. The ACC does not have this same opportunity. Really, the strategy would be similar to the B1G's addition of Rutgers and Maryland, i.e., to add more TV HH paying full price for the conference network.

In this regard, the only possible football schools that could make sense are UH (Houston DMA = 2.4 million TV HH), SMU (Dallas DMA = 2.7 million TV HH), Temple (Philadelphia DMA = 2.9 million TV HH), UConn (Hartford = .96 million TV HH, plus an enhanced presence in NYC DMA = 7.4 million TV HH).

The BTN charges $1.00 per subscriber per month in the conference footprint. The SECN charges $1.30. ESPN is in 80% of TV HH nationally, let's assume the ACCN would be in 70% of homes inthe conference footprint, which is consistent with the SECN's national penetration rate. Taking UH and SMU for a minute, you'd have 5.1 million TV HH x $1.00 (the BTN rate) x 12 months x 70% = $43 million per year. Some of that would have to go to ESPN, of course but this is in the ballpark of being accretive, even ignoring the value that it might bring to the other parts of the ESPN contract.

Some intangible matters to consider. First, going to 16 football schools would almost certainly require going to a 9 game conference schedule. Also, even going to a 20 game conference basketball schedule, the rotation of home and home games would be over more years than it is today. On the plus side, Dallas and Houston are incredible football recruiting markets and ACC schools would have a better chance to pick up a piece of those markets.

1) The 70% estimate that you just used bottoms out when you add schools near large population bases w/o string fan support. Revenue is a product of price and quantity. If few people are willing to pay for the product, the quantity is close to zero. And price is determined by supply and demand, so if there's no demand, the price would be close to zero as well. Fans matter, not markets.

2) You forgot to net your numbers against the revenue that the ACCN would be able to bring in from that area w/ our present configuration.

The end result is a significant overstatement of their value.

I think 70% is a good number based on BTN and SECN carriage. http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/

You are right about the key being the price difference within the footprint, not the price. I believe the price difference for the SECN is close to $1, and the BTN's is around $.70-$.80

Even adding these two cities would bring this amount of revenue though, it probably would not bring enough incremental revenue to justify expanding.

(09-09-2016 10:24 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  West: Texas, TCU, Houston, Louisville, Miami, WF

East: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, VT, NC St, UCONN(?)

South: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia

Everyone plays 5 division games, 1 rival & 1 from each division for 8 games. ND could play an entire division (6 games) & have a shot the ACC CG.

I think you have us confused with Baylor.

(09-09-2016 01:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 12:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 01:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:16 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Long term if you can't get the big fish(Texas) then Houston & TCU would be solid secondary adds. Even if the market penetration is limited primarily to each schools metro area then you are still adding 2 regions that will be close to size of Chicagoland by 2030.

If, and only IF, Texas came to the ACC in an ND type deal. But that doesn't seem likely.

Cheers,
Neil

At this point, the B12 is under a grant of rights agreement until the end of the 2024-25 season. It is possible that this would be extended until 2031 or 2032 as part of the ongoing B12 expansion. The question for the ACC whether there is something that it could do right now to increase its television revenue stream, particularly with the launch of the ACC Network scheduled for 2019.

The only candidates on the table would schools that are not members of P5 conferences, primarily members of the AAC. The goal would be to add TV revenues in excess of its TV payout. The B12 can do this because it previously negotiated to get a pro rata increase in revenues for any expansion and because it is going to phase in payouts to its new members. The ACC does not have this same opportunity. Really, the strategy would be similar to the B1G's addition of Rutgers and Maryland, i.e., to add more TV HH paying full price for the conference network.

In this regard, the only possible football schools that could make sense are UH (Houston DMA = 2.4 million TV HH), SMU (Dallas DMA = 2.7 million TV HH), Temple (Philadelphia DMA = 2.9 million TV HH), UConn (Hartford = .96 million TV HH, plus an enhanced presence in NYC DMA = 7.4 million TV HH).

The BTN charges $1.00 per subscriber per month in the conference footprint. The SECN charges $1.30. ESPN is in 80% of TV HH nationally, let's assume the ACCN would be in 70% of homes inthe conference footprint, which is consistent with the SECN's national penetration rate. Taking UH and SMU for a minute, you'd have 5.1 million TV HH x $1.00 (the BTN rate) x 12 months x 70% = $43 million per year. Some of that would have to go to ESPN, of course but this is in the ballpark of being accretive, even ignoring the value that it might bring to the other parts of the ESPN contract.

Some intangible matters to consider. First, going to 16 football schools would almost certainly require going to a 9 game conference schedule. Also, even going to a 20 game conference basketball schedule, the rotation of home and home games would be over more years than it is today. On the plus side, Dallas and Houston are incredible football recruiting markets and ACC schools would have a better chance to pick up a piece of those markets.

1) The 70% estimate that you just used bottoms out when you add schools near large population bases w/o string fan support. Revenue is a product of price and quantity. If few people are willing to pay for the product, the quantity is close to zero. And price is determined by supply and demand, so if there's no demand, the price would be close to zero as well. Fans matter, not markets.

2) You forgot to net your numbers against the revenue that the ACCN would be able to bring in from that area w/ our present configuration.

The end result is a significant overstatement of their value.

I think 70% is a good number based on BTN and SECN carriage. http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/

You are right about the key being the price difference within the footprint, not the price. I believe the price difference for the SECN is close to $1, and the BTN's is around $.70-$.80

Even adding these two cities would bring this amount of revenue though, it probably would not bring enough incremental revenue to justify expanding.

The B1G never added Houston + SMU. UMD athletics has a strong following, even in down cycles - neither UH nor SMU do. The same goes w/ the SEC and A&M.

(09-09-2016 01:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 01:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 12:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 01:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  If, and only IF, Texas came to the ACC in an ND type deal. But that doesn't seem likely.

Cheers,
Neil

At this point, the B12 is under a grant of rights agreement until the end of the 2024-25 season. It is possible that this would be extended until 2031 or 2032 as part of the ongoing B12 expansion. The question for the ACC whether there is something that it could do right now to increase its television revenue stream, particularly with the launch of the ACC Network scheduled for 2019.

The only candidates on the table would schools that are not members of P5 conferences, primarily members of the AAC. The goal would be to add TV revenues in excess of its TV payout. The B12 can do this because it previously negotiated to get a pro rata increase in revenues for any expansion and because it is going to phase in payouts to its new members. The ACC does not have this same opportunity. Really, the strategy would be similar to the B1G's addition of Rutgers and Maryland, i.e., to add more TV HH paying full price for the conference network.

In this regard, the only possible football schools that could make sense are UH (Houston DMA = 2.4 million TV HH), SMU (Dallas DMA = 2.7 million TV HH), Temple (Philadelphia DMA = 2.9 million TV HH), UConn (Hartford = .96 million TV HH, plus an enhanced presence in NYC DMA = 7.4 million TV HH).

The BTN charges $1.00 per subscriber per month in the conference footprint. The SECN charges $1.30. ESPN is in 80% of TV HH nationally, let's assume the ACCN would be in 70% of homes inthe conference footprint, which is consistent with the SECN's national penetration rate. Taking UH and SMU for a minute, you'd have 5.1 million TV HH x $1.00 (the BTN rate) x 12 months x 70% = $43 million per year. Some of that would have to go to ESPN, of course but this is in the ballpark of being accretive, even ignoring the value that it might bring to the other parts of the ESPN contract.

Some intangible matters to consider. First, going to 16 football schools would almost certainly require going to a 9 game conference schedule. Also, even going to a 20 game conference basketball schedule, the rotation of home and home games would be over more years than it is today. On the plus side, Dallas and Houston are incredible football recruiting markets and ACC schools would have a better chance to pick up a piece of those markets.

1) The 70% estimate that you just used bottoms out when you add schools near large population bases w/o string fan support. Revenue is a product of price and quantity. If few people are willing to pay for the product, the quantity is close to zero. And price is determined by supply and demand, so if there's no demand, the price would be close to zero as well. Fans matter, not markets.

2) You forgot to net your numbers against the revenue that the ACCN would be able to bring in from that area w/ our present configuration.

The end result is a significant overstatement of their value.

I think 70% is a good number based on BTN and SECN carriage. http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/

You are right about the key being the price difference within the footprint, not the price. I believe the price difference for the SECN is close to $1, and the BTN's is around $.70-$.80

Even adding these two cities would bring this amount of revenue though, it probably would not bring enough incremental revenue to justify expanding.

The B1G never added Houston + SMU. UMD athletics has a strong following, even in down cycles - neither UH nor SMU do. The same goes w/ the SEC and A&M.

ya, Maryland has a top notch football program....they were clearly added for the fans, and not the market

Houston football has already accomplished more in the last 2 games than Maryland will in the next 20 years. And once again, you clearly weren't at the game last Saturday

SMU is a horrible choice though...small private in a saturated sports market. The only school to get the death penalty.

While Houston has the possibility of being #3 in Texas

(09-09-2016 12:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 01:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:16 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Long term if you can't get the big fish(Texas) then Houston & TCU would be solid secondary adds. Even if the market penetration is limited primarily to each schools metro area then you are still adding 2 regions that will be close to size of Chicagoland by 2030.

If, and only IF, Texas came to the ACC in an ND type deal. But that doesn't seem likely.

Cheers,
Neil

At this point, the B12 is under a grant of rights agreement until the end of the 2024-25 season. It is possible that this would be extended until 2031 or 2032 as part of the ongoing B12 expansion. The question for the ACC whether there is something that it could do right now to increase its television revenue stream, particularly with the launch of the ACC Network scheduled for 2019.

The only candidates on the table would schools that are not members of P5 conferences, primarily members of the AAC. The goal would be to add TV revenues in excess of its TV payout. The B12 can do this because it previously negotiated to get a pro rata increase in revenues for any expansion and because it is going to phase in payouts to its new members. The ACC does not have this same opportunity. Really, the strategy would be similar to the B1G's addition of Rutgers and Maryland, i.e., to add more TV HH paying full price for the conference network.

In this regard, the only possible football schools that could make sense are UH (Houston DMA = 2.4 million TV HH), SMU (Dallas DMA = 2.7 million TV HH), Temple (Philadelphia DMA = 2.9 million TV HH), UConn (Hartford = .96 million TV HH, plus an enhanced presence in NYC DMA = 7.4 million TV HH).

The BTN charges $1.00 per subscriber per month in the conference footprint. The SECN charges $1.30. ESPN is in 80% of TV HH nationally, let's assume the ACCN would be in 70% of homes inthe conference footprint, which is consistent with the SECN's national penetration rate. Taking UH and SMU for a minute, you'd have 5.1 million TV HH x $1.00 (the BTN rate) x 12 months x 70% = $43 million per year. Some of that would have to go to ESPN, of course but this is in the ballpark of being accretive, even ignoring the value that it might bring to the other parts of the ESPN contract.

Some intangible matters to consider. First, going to 16 football schools would almost certainly require going to a 9 game conference schedule. Also, even going to a 20 game conference basketball schedule, the rotation of home and home games would be over more years than it is today. On the plus side, Dallas and Houston are incredible football recruiting markets and ACC schools would have a better chance to pick up a piece of those markets.

1) The 70% estimate that you just used bottoms out when you add schools near large population bases w/o string fan support. Revenue is a product of price and quantity. If few people are willing to pay for the product, the quantity is close to zero. And price is determined by supply and demand, so if there's no demand, the price would be close to zero as well. Fans matter, not markets.

2) You forgot to net your numbers against the revenue that the ACCN would be able to bring in from that area w/ our present configuration.

The end result is a significant overstatement of their value.

"We have a big fanbase! We should be in the Big XII since markets don't matter"
--signed UTEP

(09-09-2016 01:58 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 12:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 01:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 12:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 11:16 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Long term if you can't get the big fish(Texas) then Houston & TCU would be solid secondary adds. Even if the market penetration is limited primarily to each schools metro area then you are still adding 2 regions that will be close to size of Chicagoland by 2030.

If, and only IF, Texas came to the ACC in an ND type deal. But that doesn't seem likely.

Cheers,
Neil

At this point, the B12 is under a grant of rights agreement until the end of the 2024-25 season. It is possible that this would be extended until 2031 or 2032 as part of the ongoing B12 expansion. The question for the ACC whether there is something that it could do right now to increase its television revenue stream, particularly with the launch of the ACC Network scheduled for 2019.

The only candidates on the table would schools that are not members of P5 conferences, primarily members of the AAC. The goal would be to add TV revenues in excess of its TV payout. The B12 can do this because it previously negotiated to get a pro rata increase in revenues for any expansion and because it is going to phase in payouts to its new members. The ACC does not have this same opportunity. Really, the strategy would be similar to the B1G's addition of Rutgers and Maryland, i.e., to add more TV HH paying full price for the conference network.

In this regard, the only possible football schools that could make sense are UH (Houston DMA = 2.4 million TV HH), SMU (Dallas DMA = 2.7 million TV HH), Temple (Philadelphia DMA = 2.9 million TV HH), UConn (Hartford = .96 million TV HH, plus an enhanced presence in NYC DMA = 7.4 million TV HH).

The BTN charges $1.00 per subscriber per month in the conference footprint. The SECN charges $1.30. ESPN is in 80% of TV HH nationally, let's assume the ACCN would be in 70% of homes inthe conference footprint, which is consistent with the SECN's national penetration rate. Taking UH and SMU for a minute, you'd have 5.1 million TV HH x $1.00 (the BTN rate) x 12 months x 70% = $43 million per year. Some of that would have to go to ESPN, of course but this is in the ballpark of being accretive, even ignoring the value that it might bring to the other parts of the ESPN contract.

Some intangible matters to consider. First, going to 16 football schools would almost certainly require going to a 9 game conference schedule. Also, even going to a 20 game conference basketball schedule, the rotation of home and home games would be over more years than it is today. On the plus side, Dallas and Houston are incredible football recruiting markets and ACC schools would have a better chance to pick up a piece of those markets.

1) The 70% estimate that you just used bottoms out when you add schools near large population bases w/o string fan support. Revenue is a product of price and quantity. If few people are willing to pay for the product, the quantity is close to zero. And price is determined by supply and demand, so if there's no demand, the price would be close to zero as well. Fans matter, not markets.

2) You forgot to net your numbers against the revenue that the ACCN would be able to bring in from that area w/ our present configuration.

The end result is a significant overstatement of their value.

"We have a big fanbase! We should be in the Big XII since markets don't matter"
--signed UTEP

"No you don't!"
--signed reality

But hey, don't argue with me. Try to convince the B1G. Maybe they'll give PSU the boot. After all, who could possibly care about cornering the State College market?

(09-09-2016 01:53 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 01:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 01:18 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 12:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-08-2016 01:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  At this point, the B12 is under a grant of rights agreement until the end of the 2024-25 season. It is possible that this would be extended until 2031 or 2032 as part of the ongoing B12 expansion. The question for the ACC whether there is something that it could do right now to increase its television revenue stream, particularly with the launch of the ACC Network scheduled for 2019.

The only candidates on the table would schools that are not members of P5 conferences, primarily members of the AAC. The goal would be to add TV revenues in excess of its TV payout. The B12 can do this because it previously negotiated to get a pro rata increase in revenues for any expansion and because it is going to phase in payouts to its new members. The ACC does not have this same opportunity. Really, the strategy would be similar to the B1G's addition of Rutgers and Maryland, i.e., to add more TV HH paying full price for the conference network.

In this regard, the only possible football schools that could make sense are UH (Houston DMA = 2.4 million TV HH), SMU (Dallas DMA = 2.7 million TV HH), Temple (Philadelphia DMA = 2.9 million TV HH), UConn (Hartford = .96 million TV HH, plus an enhanced presence in NYC DMA = 7.4 million TV HH).

The BTN charges $1.00 per subscriber per month in the conference footprint. The SECN charges $1.30. ESPN is in 80% of TV HH nationally, let's assume the ACCN would be in 70% of homes inthe conference footprint, which is consistent with the SECN's national penetration rate. Taking UH and SMU for a minute, you'd have 5.1 million TV HH x $1.00 (the BTN rate) x 12 months x 70% = $43 million per year. Some of that would have to go to ESPN, of course but this is in the ballpark of being accretive, even ignoring the value that it might bring to the other parts of the ESPN contract.

Some intangible matters to consider. First, going to 16 football schools would almost certainly require going to a 9 game conference schedule. Also, even going to a 20 game conference basketball schedule, the rotation of home and home games would be over more years than it is today. On the plus side, Dallas and Houston are incredible football recruiting markets and ACC schools would have a better chance to pick up a piece of those markets.

1) The 70% estimate that you just used bottoms out when you add schools near large population bases w/o string fan support. Revenue is a product of price and quantity. If few people are willing to pay for the product, the quantity is close to zero. And price is determined by supply and demand, so if there's no demand, the price would be close to zero as well. Fans matter, not markets.

2) You forgot to net your numbers against the revenue that the ACCN would be able to bring in from that area w/ our present configuration.

The end result is a significant overstatement of their value.

I think 70% is a good number based on BTN and SECN carriage. http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/

You are right about the key being the price difference within the footprint, not the price. I believe the price difference for the SECN is close to $1, and the BTN's is around $.70-$.80

Even adding these two cities would bring this amount of revenue though, it probably would not bring enough incremental revenue to justify expanding.

The B1G never added Houston + SMU. UMD athletics has a strong following, even in down cycles - neither UH nor SMU do. The same goes w/ the SEC and A&M.

ya, Maryland has a top notch football program....they were clearly added for the fans, and not the market

Houston football has already accomplished more in the last 2 games than Maryland will in the next 20 years. And once again, you clearly weren't at the game last Saturday

SMU is a horrible choice though...small private in a saturated sports market. The only school to get the death penalty.

While Houston has the possibility of being #3 in Texas

1) Who said UMD could knock off UH in football this year?
2) Who said "just football?"
3) What game?
4) UMD was added for a variety of reasons. One of which is recruiting. Another is the fact that Penn State likes playing in front of their donors (who live in DC and NYC).