(05-12-2016 10:31 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  I don't think anyone has displayed any extreme excitement regarding this. Its more like a hoping for the best excitement.

I've seen a lot of key anxiously spilled over the possibility of an ACCN, and I've seen a lot of ups and downs when various media members hint at a network and then later dial back their statements. Call that whatever you want, but there's no way that level of a roller coaster ride can be fun. My point isn't to rain on people's parades. It's to help manage expectations. Castles in the sky usually fall back down to Earth.

And to your other points (not included in the quote), keep in mind that everyone has an agenda. Having a network placates fans and acts as insurance in the event of financial failure. Leaders can point to it and say "we did our best and got unlucky." That saves their individual reputations/jobs, even if it costs the conference money. ESPN may be open to the idea, but they could also just be diversifying risk. ACC assets aren't the same as ESPN assets, so what makes sense to them from a risk/reward standpoint may not make sense to us. There are ulterior motives at work, which may or may not be heavily aligned with the conference's best interest. It could be a great move, it could be a "meh" move, and it could be a terrible move. At this point, there is no way of knowing.

(05-12-2016 09:26 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people will sh*t on this digital model, but an online streaming network ala Hulu, Netflix, and WWE Network is the future of sports distribution. I'd certainly pay $10-$15 a month for an online ACC Network.

I agree with you, Joey. By the way, how is Portland? I have been there and love , Oregon and Washington a hell of a lot.

(05-12-2016 10:40 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 09:49 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 09:26 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people will sh*t on this digital model, but an online streaming network ala Hulu, Netflix, and WWE Network is the future of sports distribution. I'd certainly pay $10-$15 a month for an online ACC Network.

I agree about the digital model. Only I would be willing to pay a maximum of $10 a month.

The money from such a model simply isn't going to be there. There just isn't enough people who care about the ACC as a whole to drop $10/mo, as well as dealing with the device hardware, for what will amount to very little content that they care about. Most people care about 1-2 sports from one team int he conference. How much FSU football content do you think the network is really going to have.

We are NOT representative, we are people who spend their workday on message boards.

The real money is still in cable carriage, and will be going forward, cord cutting or not. HOWEVER, what I would like to see, and think might be possible, is for an ACC Network to be the first product ESPN offers without a cable subscription, the way HBO offers HBO Now.

That would give two potential revenue streams, and I think makes good sense. Eventually ESPN is going to test those waters, and I think the ACC Network would be a good one to start with.

But I don't see generating massive money with a purely digital standalone...it just doesn't have $100+ per year appeal to very many people.

Lou,
This is where I believe the football is king crowd miss the boat. Again, I point to the lack of monetizing basketball when basketball clearly has more inventory and covers a wider span of time than football. Yes, football drives the bus but bball, with regard to the ACC, can actually command top dollar on games not deemed tier 1 or 2. Let's say the mouse is too busy picking up SEC games (refer to last year for evidence), there were plenty of match ups that could have been shown on an ACC Network that had to be viewed via ESPN3. The Northeast passion for bball, especially college bball is equal to that of southern football. That is where I believe the ACC will get top dollar. Throw in interest in the Olympic sports, lax, etc and you have inventory in sports that the Northeast really supports. Unlike the SEC or BIG, the ACC offers actually sports contents beyond football that will command $.

Per Andrea Adelson on twitter:

Andrea Adelson
ESPN Staff Writer


ACC commissioner John Swofford said the league spent a "significant" amount of time discussing a future ACC Network during spring meetings but had nothing additional to add about a timeline for an announcement. "There's not a whole lot we can say or will say until we reach a definitive point," Swofford said.

Swofford: no update on TV situation at this time.
Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter · 13m13 minutes ago

(05-12-2016 11:21 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Swofford: no update on TV situation at this time.
Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter · 13m13 minutes ago

Swofford won't change his tune, but Clemson AD Dan Radakovich alludes that negotiations are in the final stages.

I think we can't safely say things are at different point that last year, even if Swofford is keeping things very close to the vest.

http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/05/12/...is-summer/

“So as we get into what we hope is the final stages of getting this done, communications will emanate from the commissioner’s office.”

(05-12-2016 11:19 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  This is where I believe the football is king crowd miss the boat. Again, I point to the lack of monetizing basketball when basketball clearly has more inventory and covers a wider span of time than football. Yes, football drives the bus but bball, with regard to the ACC, can actually command top dollar on games not deemed tier 1 or 2. Let's say the mouse is too busy picking up SEC games (refer to last year for evidence), there were plenty of match ups that could have been shown on an ACC Network that had to be viewed via ESPN3. The Northeast passion for bball, especially college bball is equal to that of southern football. That is where I believe the ACC will get top dollar. Throw in interest in the Olympic sports, lax, etc and you have inventory in sports that the Northeast really supports. Unlike the SEC or BIG, the ACC offers actually sports contents beyond football that will command $.

This strategy works best when customers can buy a few months at a time (ala carte). Football fans might not be willing to subscribe to the sports tier in order to get the ACCN, but they might be willing to pay $10/month for 3 months for $30. Basketball fans might do the same in the Winter months. And as much as I hate to admit it, there are even some Lacrosse fans out there willing to pay!

So instead of 1 million customers willing to pay $120/year you might end up with 4 million who pay an average of $30/year.

nicely done by Radakovich. toes the company line while dropping a few tidbits like "final stages" and "this summer".

(05-12-2016 11:35 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:21 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Swofford: no update on TV situation at this time.
Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter · 13m13 minutes ago

Swofford won't change his tune, but Clemson AD Dan Radakovich alludes that negotiations are in the final stages.

I think we can't safely say things are at different point that last year, even if Swofford is keeping things very close to the vest.

http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/05/12/...is-summer/

“So as we get into what we hope is the final stages of getting this done, communications will emanate from the commissioner’s office.”

(05-12-2016 11:19 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 10:40 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 09:49 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 09:26 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people will sh*t on this digital model, but an online streaming network ala Hulu, Netflix, and WWE Network is the future of sports distribution. I'd certainly pay $10-$15 a month for an online ACC Network.

I agree about the digital model. Only I would be willing to pay a maximum of $10 a month.

The money from such a model simply isn't going to be there. There just isn't enough people who care about the ACC as a whole to drop $10/mo, as well as dealing with the device hardware, for what will amount to very little content that they care about. Most people care about 1-2 sports from one team int he conference. How much FSU football content do you think the network is really going to have.

We are NOT representative, we are people who spend their workday on message boards.

The real money is still in cable carriage, and will be going forward, cord cutting or not. HOWEVER, what I would like to see, and think might be possible, is for an ACC Network to be the first product ESPN offers without a cable subscription, the way HBO offers HBO Now.

That would give two potential revenue streams, and I think makes good sense. Eventually ESPN is going to test those waters, and I think the ACC Network would be a good one to start with.

But I don't see generating massive money with a purely digital standalone...it just doesn't have $100+ per year appeal to very many people.

Lou,
This is where I believe the football is king crowd miss the boat. Again, I point to the lack of monetizing basketball when basketball clearly has more inventory and covers a wider span of time than football. Yes, football drives the bus but bball, with regard to the ACC, can actually command top dollar on games not deemed tier 1 or 2. Let's say the mouse is too busy picking up SEC games (refer to last year for evidence), there were plenty of match ups that could have been shown on an ACC Network that had to be viewed via ESPN3. The Northeast passion for bball, especially college bball is equal to that of southern football. That is where I believe the ACC will get top dollar. Throw in interest in the Olympic sports, lax, etc and you have inventory in sports that the Northeast really supports. Unlike the SEC or BIG, the ACC offers actually sports contents beyond football that will command $.

How much football would actually be shown on a conference network? Right now, Raycom has the rights to 31 Tier 3 football games, and that's on top of the ESPN games. Some of those have been sub-licensed to Fox, which carries them on its regional sports networks within the ACC footprint. How many games are left, and how attractive can they be?

I'm probably the exception. I wouldn't pay a nickel for more ACC football games. There are already more and better games I don't have the time or inclination to watch, and I don't even get all the ESPN channels on my cable package.

I can't picture Clemson fans paying much to watch BC play Syracuse, or Wake to play Duke. I have to believe they can already get most, if not all, of their own team's football games.

Who is going to pay these big bucks?

(05-12-2016 09:26 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people will sh*t on this digital model, but an online streaming network ala Hulu, Netflix, and WWE Network is the future of sports distribution. I'd certainly pay $10-$15 a month for an online ACC Network.

^ I'm with this guy.

The strength of an ACC network is like a four legged stool:

1. People in NC and Virginia as well as NW South Carolina will pay through the nose for such a network
2. Notre Dame folks will pay a reasonable price wherever they may be to get what they don't get with NBC
3. People interested in college football in general will pay a reasonable price to follow FSU and Miami football and Clemson might climb to that level if Dabo continues to win.
4. College basketball fans will pay a reasonable price to follow Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville.

An ACC network has the opportunity to be a much broader construct than the SECN or BTN. And if you really want to make some more money off it - you need to add cheerleader and coed photo spreads and various other cheap, prurient material.

Imagine the ratings for an ACC Wet T-Shirt Contest sponsored by Hooters.

(05-12-2016 11:38 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  nicely done by Radakovich. toes the company line while dropping a few tidbits like "final stages" and "this summer".

(05-12-2016 11:35 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:21 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Swofford: no update on TV situation at this time.
Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter · 13m13 minutes ago

Swofford won't change his tune, but Clemson AD Dan Radakovich alludes that negotiations are in the final stages.

I think we can't safely say things are at different point that last year, even if Swofford is keeping things very close to the vest.

http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/05/12/...is-summer/

“So as we get into what we hope is the final stages of getting this done, communications will emanate from the commissioner’s office.”

“We’re talking about various issues, we have continued to advance the ball, and hopefully, from the commissioner’s office, we’ll have some information come out this summer,” Radakovich said.

Yes, I though that was very encouraging, IMO!

(05-12-2016 12:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An ACC network has the opportunity to be a much broader construct than the SECN or BTN. And if you really want to make some more money off it - you need to add cheerleader and coed photo spreads and various other cheap, prurient material.

Imagine the ratings for an ACC Wet T-Shirt Contest sponsored by Hooters.

(05-12-2016 12:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The strength of an ACC network is like a four legged stool:

1. People in NC and Virginia as well as NW South Carolina will pay through the nose for such a network
2. Notre Dame folks will pay a reasonable price wherever they may be to get what they don't get with NBC
3. People interested in college football in general will pay a reasonable price to follow FSU and Miami football and Clemson might climb to that level if Dabo continues to win.
4. College basketball fans will pay a reasonable price to follow Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville.

An ACC network has the opportunity to be a much broader construct than the SECN or BTN. And if you really want to make some more money off it - you need to add cheerleader and coed photo spreads and various other cheap, prurient material.

Imagine the ratings for an ACC Wet T-Shirt Contest sponsored by Hooters.

Smart, especially with 2 Catholic and a Methodist school in conference.

Something to keep in mind, an ACC network isn't necessarily even a good thing for us. Right now we are roughly ten years away from taking our rights to the open market. It may be 2018 or 2019 before and if we can get one off the ground and it may come with a 20 year GOR. We may be better off weathering the storm and taking our rights to the open market.

I truly believe the ACC sold itself short with their last extension. We sold about as low as you can get last time. I wonder if the best approach is to get our house in order to setup our own network and not be beholden to ESPN when our rights come up again.

(05-12-2016 09:26 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people will sh*t on this digital model, but an online streaming network ala Hulu, Netflix, and WWE Network is the future of sports distribution. I'd certainly pay $10-$15 a month for an online ACC Network.

That would work for me, since it would be easier to opt out entirely. My fear is that somehow I'm going to be forced to pay more for my current cable package for content I don't care much about. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I don't enjoy watching ACC sports. I do. It's just that I can already see as much as I want and then some. I don't need to be parked on the sofa in front of my TV any longer then I already am.

(05-12-2016 12:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 09:26 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people will sh*t on this digital model, but an online streaming network ala Hulu, Netflix, and WWE Network is the future of sports distribution. I'd certainly pay $10-$15 a month for an online ACC Network.

That would work for me, since it would be easier to opt out entirely. My fear is that somehow I'm going to be forced to pay more for my current cable package for content I don't care much about. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I don't enjoy watching ACC sports. I do. It's just that I can already see as much as I want and then some. I don't need to be parked on the sofa in front of my TV any longer then I already am.

That gets into elasticity and demands like we discussed on the Tim Brando thread.

(05-12-2016 12:16 PM)Blybly Wrote:  Something to keep in mind, an ACC network isn't necessarily even a good thing for us. Right now we are roughly ten years away from taking our rights to the open market. It may be 2018 or 2019 before and if we can get one off the ground and it may come with a 20 year GOR. We may be better off weathering the storm and taking our rights to the open market.

I truly believe the ACC sold itself short with their last extension. We sold about as low as you can get last time. I wonder if the best approach is to get our house in order to setup our own network and not be beholden to ESPN when our rights come up again.

I've been making this point for a long time now...I seriously doubt that the increase in money is going to be worth forgoing the opportunity to come on the open market in ten years.

But it's way too far down the river for that.

(05-12-2016 12:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Imagine the ratings for an ACC Wet T-Shirt Contest sponsored by Hooters.

I love this idea!

My expectations are set for a Swofford letdown. Every time Swofford makes this things "better" ... it comes with a nasty flip side.

Swofford Upgrade: Hey guys we're gonna expand the conference.
Flip side: With Syracuse, Boston College, and Miami
Double down: Oops we got sued, actually Miami, VT, and BC. And Miami and BC will immediately tank.

Swofford Upgrade: New TV deal guys. New money!
Flip side: WAY less than the B1G and SEC got.
Double down: No TV network. And GoR.

Swofford Upgrade: We're gonna expand the conference again.
Flip side: With Syracuse and Pitt.

Swofford Upgrade: We're gonna add Notre Dame.
Flip side: Non-football only. And they get to loot an ACC bowl, and expect them to ALWAYS jump anybody 1 win higher than they are.

Swofford Upgrade: We're gonna get a TV network.
Flip side: It will be through ESPN, who will continue to relentlessly sh*t on the ACC any time they possibly can.
Double down: Not launched with the ESPN cable negotiation as a required bundle like SECN was.
Triple down: Ludicrously long 20-30 year GoR handed over for it
Quadruple down: By the time the GoR is over, cable TV will largely be a shadow of its former self, largely unbundled and a-la-carte, and the ACC will now be well behind the other conferences in having their own online premium streaming service.



Do I want a TV network? Yes.
Do I want it through ESPN? No.
Am I willing to sign a GoR extension for one? No.
Do I want it to be a TV only thing? No. It *MUST* have a streaming component with ALL the content of the regular channel available.

ESPN has turned sh*tting on the ACC into an art form. Why continue to be subservient to somebody who clearly has the best interests of the SEC closest at heart? Get out of there. If I were the ACC Commish, I'd:

1) Purchase/acquire all back catalog inventory. This means stuff previously aired by Raycom/ESPN/Fox/etc. Even long term rights from ESPN/Fox/CFP for the bowl/CFP games.
2) Starting immediately all ACC games rights are held, at least in the long run, exclusively by the ACC.
3) The ACCDN is upgraded and turned into a Netflix of the ACC. Including past back catalog content. Partner with schools to offer academic courses as part of the content. Live content still has commercials. Replays are commercial free.
4) ACC Football Live is brought into the ACCDN. All non-ACC personalities (yes, even you Batesy) are fired and replaced with ACC personalities.
5) NO GOR EXTENSIONS unless somebody hands over blood money for it. And by blood money I mean dramatically more than any other conference's per school payout.
6) See if NBC/Fox/CBS want to make a go of a TV channel. Require them to allow the game to be broadcast through the ACCDN, but give them a cut of proceeds from that.
7) Do long term courtship of SEC and Big 12 to transition into a mega-conference that covers all the parts of the country that really care about college football, and use that market dominance to put the screws to the Pac-12, B1G, and Mid-Atlantic/New England teams.