(05-12-2016 01:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(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!

I'd guess FSU and Clemson would be the perennial favorites in that sport too

(05-12-2016 01:11 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 01:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(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!

I'd guess FSU and Clemson would be the perennial favorites in that sport too

Miami laughs at that conclusion.

(05-12-2016 01:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 01:11 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 01:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(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!

I'd guess FSU and Clemson would be the perennial favorites in that sport too

Miami laughs at that conclusion.

...as does Louisville!!

(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.

I would rather each school have its own Tier 3 (or whatever) rights and market them each as they see fit.

My preference would be for a subscription based Irish Network than a cable based ACC Network.

No offense to anyone, but I don't watch any non-ND ACC sporting events and I don't expect non-ND fans to watch any ND content unless ND is playing their school.

I dislike this forced "carriage" BS with the Big Ten and SEC Networks. I am not going the like the ACC version of this sports network extortion scheme any more than those other two.

I would want the ACC network. I would much rather have that then the SEC or BIG network.....

I want an all ACC streaming network available like mlb.TV.

That's the future. The ACC may actually have an advantage if they can get something like that off the ground over the B1G and SEC.

(05-12-2016 02:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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.

I would rather each school have its own Tier 3 (or whatever) rights and market them each as they see fit.

My preference would be for a subscription based Irish Network than a cable based ACC Network.

No offense to anyone, but I don't watch any non-ND ACC sporting events and I don't expect non-ND fans to watch any ND content unless ND is playing their school.

I dislike this forced "carriage" BS with the Big Ten and SEC Networks. I am not going the like the ACC version of this sports network extortion scheme any more than those other two.

It's no more of an "extortion scheme" than what ESPN, AMC, CNN, HSN, etc is.

I still prefer the current model over streaming. By the time you pay for your internet connection & then your subscriptions, is it really that much cheaper?

(05-12-2016 03:28 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  I want an all ACC streaming network available like mlb.TV.

That's the future. The ACC may actually have an advantage if they can get something like that off the ground over the B1G and SEC.

+1. That would be nice - like SlingTV for ACC sports.

(05-12-2016 03:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 02:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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.

I would rather each school have its own Tier 3 (or whatever) rights and market them each as they see fit.

My preference would be for a subscription based Irish Network than a cable based ACC Network.

No offense to anyone, but I don't watch any non-ND ACC sporting events and I don't expect non-ND fans to watch any ND content unless ND is playing their school.

I dislike this forced "carriage" BS with the Big Ten and SEC Networks. I am not going the like the ACC version of this sports network extortion scheme any more than those other two.

It's no more of an "extortion scheme" than what ESPN, AMC, CNN, HSN, etc is.

I still prefer the current model over streaming. By the time you pay for your internet connection & then your subscriptions, is it really that much cheaper?

Presumably the internet is an irrelevant cost. You would pay for it anyway.

(05-12-2016 02:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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.

I would rather each school have its own Tier 3 (or whatever) rights and market them each as they see fit.

My preference would be for a subscription based Irish Network than a cable based ACC Network.

No offense to anyone, but I don't watch any non-ND/SU ACC sporting events and I don't expect non-ND fans to watch any ND content unless ND is playing their school.

I dislike this forced "carriage" BS with the Big Ten and SEC Networks. I am not going the like the ACC version of this sports network extortion scheme any more than those other two.

It isn't forced.

1) There is a per person rate that was negotiated based on an approximation of the demand curve. When that calculation was made, your demographic was taken into account and the rate was adjusted downwards.

2) You clearly think that you'e getting a good deal. Otherwise, you wouldn't continue to subscribe. It looks like you're over-paying for the SECN and underpaying for something else on the surface. In reality, you're paying a lot for that other thing and the SECN is free. However, that imbalance is brought back into balance by the next X suckers down the street who are getting the SECN at a bargain, but grossly overpaying for TerryTV. At the end of the day, the nominal prices are just that ... nominal. The actual prices are such that everyone only pays what they think the content is worth or less and that value contribution is approximated in the contract between the cable company and the content creator. Any imperfections in the system are the result of either luck or information asymmetries, not extortion.

(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.

It looks like the ACC is doing more than a traditional tv network. At least that's what I took away from from an article that Lumberpack linked on the Warchant thread:

“And I think they'll continue to be very aggressive in terms of how they distribute those live events. And that could be very important going forward to have a partner of that nature. So with technology and so forth, you want to be with people that are progressive and that have flexibility, that are willing to adapt. And I think that's who our partner is.

“And so we're bullish about it and I'd say they're bullish about it. It might not look exactly the same. The days of everything being just a rights fee negotiation is – there still is some of that, but there's a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together that are a partnership, if you will, as opposed to a guaranteed rights fee that will be to get this much this year.

“There's where some of the transition is coming.”

More than once, though, he either spoke directly about or alluded to ESPN's ingenuity and creativeness. Swofford spoke about how negotiations these days are often less about traditional things – like rights fees – and more about “developing businesses together that are a partnership.”




Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...rylink=cpy

(05-12-2016 04:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 02:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(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.

I would rather each school have its own Tier 3 (or whatever) rights and market them each as they see fit.

My preference would be for a subscription based Irish Network than a cable based ACC Network.

No offense to anyone, but I don't watch any non-ND/SU ACC sporting events and I don't expect non-ND fans to watch any ND content unless ND is playing their school.

I dislike this forced "carriage" BS with the Big Ten and SEC Networks. I am not going the like the ACC version of this sports network extortion scheme any more than those other two.

It isn't forced.

1) There is a per person rate that was negotiated based on an approximation of the demand curve. When that calculation was made, your demographic was taken into account and the rate was adjusted downwards.

2) You clearly think that you'e getting a good deal. Otherwise, you wouldn't continue to subscribe. It looks like you're over-paying for the SECN and underpaying for something else on the surface. In reality, you're paying a lot for that other thing and the SECN is free. However, that imbalance is brought back into balance by the next X suckers down the street who are getting the SECN at a bargain, but grossly overpaying for TerryTV. At the end of the day, the nominal prices are just that ... nominal. The actual prices are such that everyone only pays what they think the content is worth or less and that value contribution is approximated in the contract between the cable company and the content creator. Any imperfections in the system are the result of either luck or information asymmetries, not extortion.

I have never watched either the BTN or the SEC Network.

So, to me, it is forcibly added to my bill and I pay for something I absolutely do not want.

(05-12-2016 08:11 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I have never watched either the BTN or the SEC Network.

So, to me, it is forcibly added to my bill and I pay for something I absolutely do not want.

1. I don't blame you.

2. So what? Why do you keep paying for cable? I contend that you think that you (or your family - "TerryTV") are getting more value from having access to (whatever it is that you watch) than the entire cable package costs.

If that's true, then I submit to you that TerryTV is what you're buying and you think that you're getting a good deal (i.e. you're getting more than you're paying). The rest is irrelevant.

I also submit to you that when the carriage rates were negotiated between ESPN/SECN and your local cable provider, somebody did some marketing research to determine how valuable the content was. After all, why would the cable provider buy access to content at a price higher than they can sell it?

When the cable provider did their due diligence, they identified a segment of the population that really, really wanted the content, and they identified a segment of the population that really didn't want the content. They then calculated the value of the content by estimating the percent of their target market who would pay for it at a given price, and the percent who wouldn't. They then mapped out the profitability at each price point and used the maximum profitability price point as the basis for their ceiling (the ceiling was probably lower, but that was probably the starting point for determining the actual ceiling).

And, it was at that point that your demographic was taken into account and the price was lowered. If the Terry Demographic was pro- SECN/BTN, then those channels would have slightly higher rates (depending on how big your demographic is). However, you were taken into account.

Then, once everyone was taken into account, the cable provider packaged the channels together in a way that everyone would get something that they wanted, which would justify the rate that they charge you.

I oversimplified the process, but I think that it illustrates the point.

Let me use an example:
*Imagine a world with 2 channels, and people who like Channel A don't like Channel B and people who like Channel B don't like Channel A.
*Imagine 30% of the population likes Channel A and 70% of the population likes Channel B, and that ratio is constant and unchanging.
*Imagine that people will pay $10 to access a channel that they like and are completely indifferent about channels that they don't like.

You could let everyone buy their channel a-la-carte (for $10), or you could charge everyone ($10) and give them both channels, and then give Channel A $3 ($10*30%=$3) and Channel B $7.

Scenario 1 (a la carte)
If there are 10 customers, 3 would pay $10 for A, so A would get $30 (3*$10=$30). 7 would pay $10 for B, so B would get $70.

Scenario 2 (bundle)
If there are 10 customers, all will buy the bundle for $10 each. $30 will go to A ($10*30%*10=$30) and $70 will go to B.

The end result is the same. The people who like A aren't really putting money in B's pocket and visa versa.

That illustration is a simplified version of your situation, and why you aren't actually funding the SECN/B1G.

I hope that this post is easier to read than the wall of text in the post above (but still be sure to read the first 2 line paragraph of bullet 2 - that's important).

(05-12-2016 09:29 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 09:05 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 08:46 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 08:43 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 08:28 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  'applause'

I'm holding my applause until I see the terms.

It's all about the $$$ at this point.

Of course it is, but without a network there isn't even the potential.

Even with the Pac 12's issues member schools still make $1-1.5 Million off of theirs.

Whether an ACCN is a mega or moderate success we don't know yet, but in my opinion it is going to do well. Maybe not SEC well, but better than the Pac 12, LHN, or any potential Big 12 network.

You can't sign a long term GOR extension not knowing exactly what that potential is. Otherwise, it needs to stay as is.

Lucky for Swofford, FSU has a total zero as AD, so he will be easily tricked into signing anything (like Barron was).

How insane is this mindset? Are you really telling me that your president, legal counsel and board of trustees are not carefully combing through such an important agreement? That if you sign this agreement it's not because it is a better deal than you are willing to concede but rather because your athletic director is a moron?

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

And by "you", I don't mean you specifically, Nole. I mean your incredibly goofy-ass fan base. You people are out in left field on almost every issue and you need to start making your way back to planet earth.

Florida State is not going to sign any agreement that has not been vetted by literally dozens of people. If all of those people go through the agreement and decide that it is worth signing onto – there's your answer.

It is not because your gullible athletic director was tricked or drugged or any of that other craziness. It is because all of your insanely petulant conspiracy theorists, who never seem to stop making threats and demands even though anyone with a functioning brain can plainly see that they have nowhere to go and thus no leverage whatsoever, are full of shitt and always have been.

(05-12-2016 12:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(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.

ya, and that's when the B1G and SEC raid the ACC

IMO, it's good for the ACC to have ESPN in it's corner at the moment...the ACC is going to be a premier league soon, and ESPN will capitalize on that

Before we joined this league I had no issue with any ACC program or it's fans. I was pretty excited because I assumed we were joining a more sophisticated outfit than the disjointed and deeply dysfunctional one we were leaving in the Big East.

For the most part that has been true.

However, the Florida State fans - and a few Clemson fans too - have not acquitted themselves well.

I hate to say this but many of you come across as people who don't understand basic business principles. Hell, during the whole Big 12 rumors, I wasn't sure if you even understood how simple math worked and I was certain that you were not good at reasoning.

Many of you seemed to invent something that I call "aspirational math" – that is numbers that you would like to see happen so therefore they are magically a reality or at least a potential reality.

Nope. That's just not how reality works.

In all fairness to you folks, aspirational math seems to be a staple of message board discussions that relate to conference expansion. You are far from alone. Still, it was incredible to see the mental gymnastics so many people would undergo to make that Florida State and Clemson to the Big 12 scenario seem plausible – or even possible. It was neither – which is why I made fun of you so relentlessly during that time and why continue to shake my head at some of your asinine threats based almost entirely on those goofy theories.

You guys seem to think that on-field success has a strong relationship with leverage. That's ridiculously naïve and simply not how this whole thing works. If it did work that way Syracuse, Boston College, and Pitt would not have been invited to the ACC ahead of Louisville and West Virginia; and Maryland and Rutgers would not be in the Big Ten.

You want to know who has leverage? North Carolina has leverage. Virginia has leverage. Why do they have leverage? Because they have options, that's why. If North Carolina starts making some demands, I will be much more inclined to listen because we cannot afford to lose the Tar Heels and I know that they have options. The same goes for the Hoos. However, Florida State and Clemson, nope, not even close. Make yourselves comfortable, you're going to be here a while - we all are.

(05-16-2016 11:05 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Before we joined this league I had no issue with any ACC program or it's fans. I was pretty excited because I assumed we were joining a more sophisticated outfit than the disjointed and deeply dysfunctional one we were leaving in the Big East.

For the most part that has been true.

However, the Florida State fans - and a few Clemson fans too - have not acquitted themselves well.

I hate to say this but many of you come across as people who don't understand basic business principles. Hell, during the whole Big 12 rumors, I wasn't sure if you even understood how simple math worked and I was certain that you were not good at reasoning.

Many of you seemed to invent something that I call "aspirational math" – that is numbers that you would like to see happen so therefore they are magically a reality or at least a potential reality.

Nope. That's just not how reality works.

In all fairness to you folks, aspirational math seems to be a staple of message board discussions that relate to conference expansion. You are far from alone. Still, it was incredible to see the mental gymnastics so many people would undergo to make that Florida State and Clemson to the Big 12 scenario seem plausible – or even possible. It was neither – which is why I made fun of you so relentlessly during that time and why continue to shake my head at some of your asinine threats based almost entirely on those goofy theories.

You guys seem to think that on-field success has a strong relationship with leverage. That's ridiculously naïve and simply not how this whole thing works. If it did work that way Syracuse, Boston College, and Pitt would not have been invited to the ACC ahead of Louisville and West Virginia; and Maryland and Rutgers would not be in the Big Ten.

You want to know who has leverage? North Carolina has leverage. Virginia has leverage. Why do they have leverage? Because they have options, that's why. If North Carolina starts making some demands, I will be much more inclined to listen because we cannot afford to lose the Tar Heels and I know that they have options. The same goes for the Hoos. However, Florida State and Clemson, nope, not even close. Make yourselves comfortable, you're going to be here a while - we all are.

With all due respect, I don't think generalizing an entire fanbase of a school is the most efficient way to win an argument or to make ones point of view. Also, every fan base has its share of fans that are discontent with the current situation. If you look at the SB Nation Blog Site "Cardiac Hill", in the comment section, many people so upset with the ACC for Pitt playing in the Military Bowl, that they wrote that their school should quite the ACC and lobby to join the Big 12.

Cardiac Hill Blog Post

Just sharing my two cents folks. Have a good day everyone.

(05-16-2016 11:05 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Before we joined this league I had no issue with any ACC program or it's fans. I was pretty excited because I assumed we were joining a more sophisticated outfit than the disjointed and deeply dysfunctional one we were leaving in the Big East.

For the most part that has been true.

However, the Florida State fans - and a few Clemson fans too - have not acquitted themselves well.

I hate to say this but many of you come across as people who don't understand basic business principles. Hell, during the whole Big 12 rumors, I wasn't sure if you even understood how simple math worked and I was certain that you were not good at reasoning.

Many of you seemed to invent something that I call "aspirational math" – that is numbers that you would like to see happen so therefore they are magically a reality or at least a potential reality.

Nope. That's just not how reality works.

In all fairness to you folks, aspirational math seems to be a staple of message board discussions that relate to conference expansion. You are far from alone. Still, it was incredible to see the mental gymnastics so many people would undergo to make that Florida State and Clemson to the Big 12 scenario seem plausible – or even possible. It was neither – which is why I made fun of you so relentlessly during that time and why continue to shake my head at some of your asinine threats based almost entirely on those goofy theories.

You guys seem to think that on-field success has a strong relationship with leverage. That's ridiculously naïve and simply not how this whole thing works. If it did work that way Syracuse, Boston College, and Pitt would not have been invited to the ACC ahead of Louisville and West Virginia; and Maryland and Rutgers would not be in the Big Ten.

You want to know who has leverage? North Carolina has leverage. Virginia has leverage. Why do they have leverage? Because they have options, that's why. If North Carolina starts making some demands, I will be much more inclined to listen because we cannot afford to lose the Tar Heels and I know that they have options. The same goes for the Hoos. However, Florida State and Clemson, nope, not even close. Make yourselves comfortable, you're going to be here a while - we all are.

I suspect the schools those fans root for understand this reality better, even as they make sympathetic noises directed to those fans. Those fans make the mistake of believing that because on-field success - more precisely, football success - is the only thing that matters to them, that it is in fact the only thing that matters. It must be especially galling to those fans that the two ACC schools that appear to have the most leverage, and be in the greatest demand, are schools whose football success over the years could only be described as mediocre at best.

I'm not convinced that the ACC would be adversely affected all that much if BOTH UNC AND UVA defected... as long as the rest of the gange sticks together...
...the football product would remain as good if not better
...the basketball product would still be the best in the land
...the revenue would be divided by 13 instead of 15
...the schedule rotation would be easier and faster

Not that I WANT to see any team leave, just saying I don't believe the survival of the ACC rests upon those two teams sticking around.