http://www.wralsportsfan.com/buzzsportra.../15697628/
at 4:00 mark he is asked about the ACC Network and will it be all digital?

Hale says he thinks "a network is going to happen" and "it wouldn't surprise [him] if there is a more definitive announcement on that this week", but he would be surprised if it isn't "a traditional network".

(05-12-2016 05:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  http://www.wralsportsfan.com/buzzsportra.../15697628/
at 4:00 mark he is asked about the ACC Network and will it be all digital?

Hale says he thinks "a network is going to happen" and "it wouldn't surprise [him] if there is a more definitive announcement on that this week", but he would be surprised if it isn't "a traditional network".

Other than Swofford putting out the official statement, I don't know how many more people and signs have to be given that say the network is coming.

I think we're looking at 2018.

'applause'

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

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

(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.

(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.

Knowing the ACC, they probably wouldn't release any details about $$$ any way which would stink.

(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.

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.

(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).

(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.

But at what cost?

(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.

(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.

But if the ACC only makes $1.5 million, that would be a net loss of the same amount, since we get paid $3 million a year by ESPN if we don't have a network.

(05-12-2016 09:50 AM)ken d 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.

But if the ACC only makes $1.5 million, that would be a net loss of the same amount, since we get paid $3 million a year by ESPN if we don't have a network.

Exactly. There are costs to everything, and nobody on this board has taken the time to come up with a compelling argument as to why a conference network is markedly better than the alternative. I'm sure that someone in the ACC office has done the calcs, but we haven't. So, any extreme excitement here is, in my opinion, irrational exuberance.

(05-12-2016 09:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 09:50 AM)ken d 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:  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.

But if the ACC only makes $1.5 million, that would be a net loss of the same amount, since we get paid $3 million a year by ESPN if we don't have a network.

Exactly. There are costs to everything, and nobody on this board has taken the time to come up with a compelling argument as to why a conference network is markedly better than the alternative. I'm sure that someone in the ACC office has done the calcs, but we haven't. So, any extreme excitement here is, in my opinion, irrational exuberance.

I haven't seen an argument why an alternative is better than a network.

The problem with the 3 Million flat fee is to our knowledge there is no growth potential. The Pac 12 still has a chance to be very successful. Remember the Big 10 struggled out of the gates. Only the SEC Network was a success from Day 1.

Of course there is some risk involved. Nobody knows what the carriage rates will be or how many subscribers there are, but I bet ESPN has a good idea at this point.

The ACC went the conservative route in 2009-2010 when the Network startup costs were deemed to high. It turned into a huge mistake.

Look at it this way. ESPN has lost subscribers and profitability, and yet they still see enough potential in an ACC network that they are willing to work out a deal. We still don't know if it might be a multi-platform model - including a traditional model.

At the moment that's good enough for me that this is the right thing to do.

Despite the SECN, people are cutting the cord in massive numbers according to the news. Is there any data out there to show any impact on cord cutting in SEC markets? Did people alter their packages because of the SECN in SEC country?

(05-12-2016 09:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 09:50 AM)ken d 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:  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.

But if the ACC only makes $1.5 million, that would be a net loss of the same amount, since we get paid $3 million a year by ESPN if we don't have a network.

Exactly. There are costs to everything, and nobody on this board has taken the time to come up with a compelling argument as to why a conference network is markedly better than the alternative. I'm sure that someone in the ACC office has done the calcs, but we haven't. So, any extreme excitement here is, in my opinion, irrational exuberance.

I don't think that anyone on this board has enough intimate details about this situation or whats really involved to determine if its a good idea or a bad idea for an ACC network. But if you are sure that folks in the ACC office have done the calculations, as I'm sure that the ESPN folks have done their calculations, and they seem to have proceeded on getting a network started, based on those calculations. ESPN didn't grow to become the multi billion dollar conglomerate that they are because they don't know what they are doing. Based on those facts, imo, its not irrational to have some excitement about the potential of an ACCN. I don't think anyone has displayed any extreme excitement regarding this. Its more like a hoping for the best excitement.

(05-12-2016 10:10 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 09:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Exactly. There are costs to everything, and nobody on this board has taken the time to come up with a compelling argument as to why a conference network is markedly better than the alternative. I'm sure that someone in the ACC office has done the calcs, but we haven't. So, any extreme excitement here is, in my opinion, irrational exuberance.

I haven't seen an argument why an alternative is better than a network.

The problem with the 3 Million flat fee is to our knowledge there is no growth potential. The Pac 12 still has a chance to be very successful. Remember the Big 10 struggled out of the gates. Only the SEC Network was a success from Day 1.

Of course there is some risk involved. Nobody knows what the carriage rates will be or how many subscribers there are, but I bet ESPN has a good idea at this point.

The ACC went the conservative route in 2009-2010 when the Network startup costs were deemed to high. It turned into a huge mistake.

Look at it this way. ESPN has lost subscribers and profitability, and yet they still see enough potential in an ACC network that they are willing to work out a deal. We still don't know if it might be a multi-platform model - including a traditional model.

At the moment that's good enough for me that this is the right thing to do.

"I haven't seen an argument why an alternative is better than a network."
Agreed, but nobody is besides themselves with excitement over not having a network. Keep in mind that I am cautioning against "irrational exuberance," which cannot exist without excitement.

"The problem with the 3 Million flat fee is to our knowledge there is no growth potential. The Pac 12 still has a chance to be very successful. Remember the Big 10 struggled out of the gates. Only the SEC Network was a success from Day 1."
There's also 1) no real possibility of it going down, and 2) probably more money early on (i.e time value of money effects). Like you said, only the SECN was a big hit out of the gates.

"Of course there is some risk involved. Nobody knows what the carriage rates will be or how many subscribers there are, but I bet ESPN has a good idea at this point."
True, but one can persuasively argue that ESPN is the party that we're bargaining against.

"The ACC went the conservative route in 2009-2010 when the Network startup costs were deemed to high. It turned into a huge mistake."
I think that the big mistake was nepotism. I don't think that you can say having a network was a mistake. I'd bet that the Pac lost money on their network.

"Look at it this way. ESPN has lost subscribers and profitability, and yet they still see enough potential in an ACC network that they are willing to work out a deal."
They'd probably also be willing to broadcast ACC content for free, but that doesn't mean it's a good deal for us. Heck, if there is a 50-50 P/L split between the ACC and ESPN, the network could lose $5.99 million per year and still make ESPN money. Think about that.

"At the moment that's good enough for me that this is the right thing to do."
It may very well be, and I admire your conference zeal. However, I think it's premature.

Yeah, its also possible it could accn plus some amount from the 'flat fee' to start.

(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.

(05-12-2016 10:38 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Yeah, its also possible it could accn plus some amount from the 'flat fee' to start.

Agreed. Virtually anything can happen. This problem with this kind of speculation is that it isn't based in anything other than hopes and dreams.

However, i don't want to keep raining on parades. If getting excited makes you happy, then go nuts. Just be prepared if reality doesn't end up being as good as you imagined.