Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ACC Network info from Pitt
Author Message
OrangeDude Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 870
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 123
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #21
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
(04-27-2018 10:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(04-27-2018 09:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-27-2018 02:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I think everyone is reading too much into these comments. How can one fixate on a non-defined vague term like "significantly" while ignoring "conservative and strong" and "very, very beneficial" while also forgetting that it flat out says quantitative projections for the network aren't yet fully developed. The take home point isn't comparing $ to $, it is that it is obvious that the Pitt athletic administration is very high on the ACC Network and its future, and for Pitt specifically, its studio network upgrades are coming in on time and under budget.

Well, at least to me, the entire statement seems to support concerns when it comes to the early years of the ACCN:

"it will take a few years for it to actually increase significantly over what we get right now from television revenue from the ACC."

While you are correct it doesn't say there will be no increase, I think reasonable people can interpret this statement as meaning that the initial increase will likely only be in the $3 million range specifically because the significantly increased monies would be the $8-10 million figure that has been put forth by others like Stan Wilcox at FSU and I believe Whit Babcock at VT but I could be wrong about him being the second AD that has echoed Stan Wilcox' statement. Wilcox also indicated the projections would be $10-15 million down the road. So it seems some think it will be at least $8 million quite soon after the ACCN is up and running.

Considering the ACC only got a little less than $16 million from the ACC TV contracts for 2015-16, would anyone characterize a potential jump by $4-7 million as being not much higher than what we get now, which is what the statement above says to me?

I suppose you know the Pitt administrators better than I do, but that wording is odd.

Cheers,
Neil

Why would anyone be comparing the increase in what a network would bring over other tv money in 2019-20 to what the ACC received in 2015-16? That would be odd. They may not know the exact quantity that the network will bring, other than the "conservative" projections (which is what they'd plan budgets with), but they would pretty much know the amount the other media contracts will bring in FY2020. Academic and athletic administrators definitely don't think like message board posters, I can guarantee that. The only people expressing any sort of concern about the network are people absolutely not plugged into what is going on inside the conference, which I think is telling. There is not the slightest indication out of any one of the 15 members, or ESPN, that the Network isn't going to be successful and beneficial. But it is as if some think there is a big conspiracy in the ACC to dupe people who are primarily fans of conference revenues.

There are start up costs, and those aren't just what is being put up by individual schools for cameras and studios. It is unrealistic to think a brand new network is going to immediately catch up to something with a 5 to 10 year head start and it is equally unrealistic to think that it will never grow from its launch, especially after start-up costs are recouped. I don't get the angst, other than trying to win some message board dick measuring contest with fanboys from other conferences. Contracts are always backloaded. Message board and blog comparisons between conference are never apples to apples. But then, there is a crowd whose SEC-***** envy manifests as ACC loathing and jumps on every chance to be negative. But I've watched their posts for years now, and they been almost entirely wrong at every turn with their predictable predictions of failure and inability to compete. Remember, they were all pretty much adamant a network wasn't even going to happen in the first place. If they end up being right and the ACC is buried by an avalanche of Big10 and SEC dollars, then they may get their fantasy wish to be free agents in 15 years or so. But if the network is successful and other things take care of themselves, baring unforseen upheaval, the GOR will be extended again at some point down the line. If that doesn't happen by 2030 or so, then things might not be panning out. Until then it serves absolutely no purpose to be Eeyores.

Of course contracts are back-loaded, but you do realize the back-loaded end over let's say a 20 year deal isn't like $5 million gaps per team between each and every year, right? They are usually less than $2 million gaps per team, per year. Example, after the ACC TV contract was renegotiated for the additions of SU, Pitt and ND the figures from FY 13-14 to FY 14-15, the total ACC TV package only increased $20.7 million, or just under $1.5 million per team for full members. Based upon ND's total conference shares it appears the Irish gets a 1/15th share of approximately 20% of the total TV contract $$$ that year.

But even if you weren't familiar with all those numbers (since many posters aren't interested in those things) and even if the administrator actually meant not much different than what they know Pitt will receive from the ACC TV contract in 2019-20, then the statement they made is not in sync with what a couple of other administrators have indicated, particularly Stan Wilcox who said the ACCN would be worth between $8-10 million more for FSU and down the road between $10-15 million more per team.

Based upon what we know was distributed per team for FY 2015-16 (and not adjusted upward for the rumored $3 million a year per school for not having a network in place), the FY 2019-20 tv contract distribution would likely be $22-24 million per team. So an increase of $8 million that year from the ACCN on top of $24 million is substantial, since it would be a 33% increase.

Now back to the statement made by a Pitt administrator, the only figures one can conceivably state would "not be significantly greater" than receiving the projected ACC TV contract for that year would still be in the $2-4 million range (my point in my post), since anything above that would be a 20% increase. And I suspect most of us would LOVE even a 10% increase in our income, no less 20%, especially conservative stoic ADs.

So unless they truly believe the ACCN is only initially going to make $2-4 million per team then their statement is at the very least at odds with a picture others in the conference (not message board fans) are attempting to portray. So is the truth Pitt's $2-4 million a year for the initial 2 years of the ACCN, is it FSU's $8-10 million a year, or is it somewhere in-between? I suspect it is likely the latter, which is why I am standing by my prediction of $5-7 million. I have been known to be wrong so don't bet the house on that prediction. 03-wink

At the very least I hope you can understand how and why expectations of some posters were raised. It wasn't simply message board posters making crap up.

As for the rest of your post, I don't disagree with much of that rant. But you know that already, so I know that wasn't for my benefit.

Cheers,
Neil
04-28-2018 02:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #22
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
Spot on, Paco. To add to it. The $10M each school is spending is on mostly infrastructure. That is adding value to your institution. A few of students doing production each year will actually get jobs in the industry. It can't be bad to have alumni at various media outlets.

It isn't always just about money. My feelings are the law of diminishing returns applies here. Schools will waste quite a bit of the excessive profits on "bright ideas" of those controlling the purse strings.
04-28-2018 07:17 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #23
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
(04-27-2018 09:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-27-2018 02:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I think everyone is reading too much into these comments. How can one fixate on a non-defined vague term like "significantly" while ignoring "conservative and strong" and "very, very beneficial" while also forgetting that it flat out says quantitative projections for the network aren't yet fully developed. The take home point isn't comparing $ to $, it is that it is obvious that the Pitt athletic administration is very high on the ACC Network and its future, and for Pitt specifically, its studio network upgrades are coming in on time and under budget.

Well, at least to me, the entire statement seems to support concerns when it comes to the early years of the ACCN:

"it will take a few years for it to actually increase significantly over what we get right now from television revenue from the ACC."

While you are correct it doesn't say there will be no increase, I think reasonable people can interpret this statement as meaning that the initial increase will likely only be in the $3 million range specifically because the significantly increased monies would be the $8-10 million figure that has been put forth by others like Stan Wilcox at FSU and I believe Whit Babcock at VT but I could be wrong about him being the second AD that has echoed Stan Wilcox' statement. Wilcox also indicated the projections would be $10-15 million down the road. So it seems some think it will be at least $8 million quite soon after the ACCN is up and running.

Considering the ACC only got a little less than $16 million from the ACC TV contracts for 2015-16, would anyone characterize a potential jump by $4-7 million as being not much higher than what we get now, which is what the statement above says to me?

I suppose you know the Pitt administrators better than I do, but that wording is odd.

Cheers,
Neil

From a Q&A with Whit Babcock, by Andy Bitter, Roanoke Times May 24, 2017:
http://www.roanoke.com/hokies/whit-babco...999ac.html

Q: Has the ACC given you a projection of what they think this could produce revenue-wise per year?
A: They have. And they have done it verbally and they have asked us not to share that, just because we don’t want to aim too high or too low. But there are projections based on the number of households, what the inner-market would be, the outer-market times however many millions of homes. So it will all be successful or not based on the distribution...

[NOTE: Babcock seems to be pretty tight-lipped most of the time. At any rate, I can't seem to find any source citing a specific dollar amount except for Wilcox at FSU. Doesn't mean he isn't right, just not corroborated.]
04-30-2018 04:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hallcity Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,684
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Duke
Location:
Post: #24
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
(04-30-2018 04:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-27-2018 09:30 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(04-27-2018 02:25 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I think everyone is reading too much into these comments. How can one fixate on a non-defined vague term like "significantly" while ignoring "conservative and strong" and "very, very beneficial" while also forgetting that it flat out says quantitative projections for the network aren't yet fully developed. The take home point isn't comparing $ to $, it is that it is obvious that the Pitt athletic administration is very high on the ACC Network and its future, and for Pitt specifically, its studio network upgrades are coming in on time and under budget.

Well, at least to me, the entire statement seems to support concerns when it comes to the early years of the ACCN:

"it will take a few years for it to actually increase significantly over what we get right now from television revenue from the ACC."

While you are correct it doesn't say there will be no increase, I think reasonable people can interpret this statement as meaning that the initial increase will likely only be in the $3 million range specifically because the significantly increased monies would be the $8-10 million figure that has been put forth by others like Stan Wilcox at FSU and I believe Whit Babcock at VT but I could be wrong about him being the second AD that has echoed Stan Wilcox' statement. Wilcox also indicated the projections would be $10-15 million down the road. So it seems some think it will be at least $8 million quite soon after the ACCN is up and running.

Considering the ACC only got a little less than $16 million from the ACC TV contracts for 2015-16, would anyone characterize a potential jump by $4-7 million as being not much higher than what we get now, which is what the statement above says to me?

I suppose you know the Pitt administrators better than I do, but that wording is odd.

Cheers,
Neil

From a Q&A with Whit Babcock, by Andy Bitter, Roanoke Times May 24, 2017:
http://www.roanoke.com/hokies/whit-babco...999ac.html

Q: Has the ACC given you a projection of what they think this could produce revenue-wise per year?
A: They have. And they have done it verbally and they have asked us not to share that, just because we don’t want to aim too high or too low. But there are projections based on the number of households, what the inner-market would be, the outer-market times however many millions of homes. So it will all be successful or not based on the distribution...

[NOTE: Babcock seems to be pretty tight-lipped most of the time. At any rate, I can't seem to find any source citing a specific dollar amount except for Wilcox at FSU. Doesn't mean he isn't right, just not corroborated.]

They're being cautious. That's probably wise. That's not a sign that things will work out well or poorly. We're going to have to wait.
04-30-2018 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #25
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
Lots of talk but no action so far! 07-coffee3





[Image: wendys-wheres-the-beef.jpg]
05-01-2018 07:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #26
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/may-cove...works.html

whoops.

Almost like waiting, waiting, and waiting is a bad business model.
05-02-2018 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #27
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
(05-02-2018 08:47 AM)nole Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/may-cove...works.html

whoops.

Almost like waiting, waiting, and waiting is a bad business model.

Definitely feels like one year too long after the announcement (which, itself, was about 3 years too late). What I'm hearing is that ESPN will evaluate all 15 ACC schools in August to make sure they are ready for next year... then wait until next year. What???

Should've done all this years ago, but that's water under the bridge now. Waiting until next year is NOT... it's just aggravating.
05-02-2018 08:58 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
green Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,251
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 389
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #28
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
(05-02-2018 08:47 AM)nole Wrote:  Almost like waiting, waiting, and waiting is a bad business model.

[Image: img_28031.png?w=620&crop=0%2C0px...;amp;ssl=1]

Quote:Kagan’s research shows that, in addition to its well-documented limited reach (i.e., households), the Pac-12 National network generates a dramatically lower average subscriber fee than the SEC and Big Ten networks.

Perhaps more surprising is that the Pac-12 National’s subscriber fee has dropped over the years — and not by a few cents, either.

It has plunged.

But here’s where the situation gets interesting.

Kagan’s research listed the average national subscriber fee in five-year increments:

* In 2012, the Big Ten commanded $0.37 per sub, while the Pac-12 National network received $0.30.

* By 2017, the Big Ten’s average sub fee had jumped to $0.48, an increase of 30 percent, while the Pac-12 fee had dropped to $0.11.

That’s right: From $0.30 to $0.11 in the five-year span.

Details aside, the Kagan estimates show just how far the Pac-12 Networks lag behind their peers at the SEC and Big Ten in subscriber fees and, in a larger sense, how the conference might have overreached its audience in creating six regional networks in addition to Pac-12 National.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/p...-just-yet/

familiarize yourself with the do's & don'ts ...

PATIENCE YOUNG GRASSHOPPER
05-02-2018 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 870
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 123
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #29
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
My own take on what I think will happen is that ESPN Classic and ESPNews will go away some time in the future entirely regardless of what happens with the ACCN. Disney/ESPN will hope to get the ACCN on with approximately 60M subscribers with an average rate of 25 cents for an annual take its first year of $180M which when divided 50/50 will leave $90M for the ACC to divide up between 15 members resulting in $6 million per team initially.

Now ESPN loses $$$ in the above scenario, but I think they see the writing on the wall in terms of the decline of the cable subscriber model and will ultimately want to be left with the networks capable of providing/showing the best product - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, and ACCN, although I could imagine ESPNU becoming ESPN3 to allow for it to be an overflow channel for a lot of sports instead of just college sports.

As always, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2018 02:50 PM by OrangeDude.)
05-02-2018 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #30
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
(05-02-2018 02:49 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  My own take on what I think will happen is that ESPN Classic and ESPNews will go away some time in the future entirely regardless of what happens with the ACCN. Disney/ESPN will hope to get the ACCN on with approximately 60M subscribers with an average rate of 25 cents for an annual take its first year of $180M which when divided 50/50 will leave $90M for the ACC to divide up between 15 members resulting in $6 million per team initially.

Now ESPN loses $$$ in the above scenario, but I think they see the writing on the wall in terms of the decline of the cable subscriber model and will ultimately want to be left with the networks capable of providing/showing the best product - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, and ACCN, although I could imagine ESPNU becoming ESPN3 to allow for it to be an overflow channel for a lot of sports instead of just college sports.

As always, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

I think the ACCN starts with fewer subs but higher rate... close to the $0.74 SECN gets, but possibly less total subs - especially outside the footprint. I have no idea what the initial revenue will come out to be at this point - too many changing variables.
05-02-2018 03:36 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #31
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
(05-02-2018 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 02:49 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  My own take on what I think will happen is that ESPN Classic and ESPNews will go away some time in the future entirely regardless of what happens with the ACCN. Disney/ESPN will hope to get the ACCN on with approximately 60M subscribers with an average rate of 25 cents for an annual take its first year of $180M which when divided 50/50 will leave $90M for the ACC to divide up between 15 members resulting in $6 million per team initially.

Now ESPN loses $$$ in the above scenario, but I think they see the writing on the wall in terms of the decline of the cable subscriber model and will ultimately want to be left with the networks capable of providing/showing the best product - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, and ACCN, although I could imagine ESPNU becoming ESPN3 to allow for it to be an overflow channel for a lot of sports instead of just college sports.

As always, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

I think the ACCN starts with fewer subs but higher rate... close to the $0.74 SECN gets, but possibly less total subs - especially outside the footprint. I have no idea what the initial revenue will come out to be at this point - too many changing variables.

The ACC currently gets how much from ESPN for not having a network? 2 to 3 million a year?

There's your reason for the remarks of about we may not make much more than we do currently at the inception. Let's say that Neil is correct and .25 cents is closer to the initial subscription fee. It's less than the Big 10 but more than double the average rates of the in footprint and out of footprint rates of the PAC.

Plus you have to add in the factor that you may be getting a slightly different rate for that portion of the SEC footprint you are bundled to. That's a perk over what the SECN had at its opening.

So if the ACCN does hit around the 5 to 6 million mark per school payout in the first year then 3 million that was given from ESPN to the ACC for not having a network will be missed resulting in a NET addition of 2 to 3 million over the existing payouts.

A higher rate will be based on demand for the ACCN. If you rally your alums to demand it, as the SEC did, and you make an impact your rate will be adjusted upward and your rate for the second year will be higher, especially within your footprint.

So, expectations in the 8 to 10 million range is not necessarily far fetched in 5 years.

I think it took the SECN 3 years to hit its stride, but the initial high demand did assist our rate. Remember that our rate is 1.30 inside our footprint and .25 cents out of the footprint. Our average rate for all subscribers is .74 cents as illustrate in the diagram posted above. I think it is not unreasonable for the ACC in footprint rate to be around 60 to 65 cents (or upwards with initial high demand) and 10 to 15 cents outside of your footprint bringing in an average of around .25 to 30 cents for the first year.

So there's no need to feel like chicken little, nor is there cause for irrational exuberance. But 5 years out you'll all be glad you were a part of it. I don't know how the start up costs will be handled for you guys but it sounds to me like you are following our plan where the schools fronted the costs. It's ESPN's portion of the start up that will be split 50/50 in the first year's payouts and that will probably eat another 2 to 3 million per school which I included in my guess that your first year payout would be around 5 to 6 million minus your 3 million per school for not having a network and prorated for 50% of ESPN's startup costs over the first couple of years.

That's really the reason that the SECN didn't jump to paying out 7 million per school the first couple of years.

The main thing that is beneficial is that by the time your contract expires with ESPN, should streaming be the way of life, each of your schools will be ready to distribute their own product. So at worst you are being weened for self production, which is a good thing. At best 10 million per school is not unreachable in the time it would take to matriculate an incoming class.
05-02-2018 10:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 870
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 123
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #32
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
(05-02-2018 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 02:49 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  My own take on what I think will happen is that ESPN Classic and ESPNews will go away some time in the future entirely regardless of what happens with the ACCN. Disney/ESPN will hope to get the ACCN on with approximately 60M subscribers with an average rate of 25 cents for an annual take its first year of $180M which when divided 50/50 will leave $90M for the ACC to divide up between 15 members resulting in $6 million per team initially.

Now ESPN loses $$$ in the above scenario, but I think they see the writing on the wall in terms of the decline of the cable subscriber model and will ultimately want to be left with the networks capable of providing/showing the best product - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, and ACCN, although I could imagine ESPNU becoming ESPN3 to allow for it to be an overflow channel for a lot of sports instead of just college sports.

As always, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

I think the ACCN starts with fewer subs but higher rate... close to the $0.74 SECN gets, but possibly less total subs - especially outside the footprint. I have no idea what the initial revenue will come out to be at this point - too many changing variables.

The ACC currently gets how much from ESPN for not having a network? 2 to 3 million a year? There's your reason for the remarks of about we may not make much more than we do currently at the inception.

Well that could indeed be it, which I didn't think about. But even assuming that rumor was true, I thought it wasn't suppose to start until this year. So I doubt we will know for sure until the 2017-18 Form 990 is filed. But if true, that will help explain the quote to me. So thanks.

Quote:Let's say that Neil is correct and .25 cents is closer to the initial subscription fee. It's less than the Big 10 but more than double the average rates of the in footprint and out of footprint rates of the PAC.

Plus you have to add in the factor that you may be getting a slightly different rate for that portion of the SEC footprint you are bundled to. That's a perk over what the SECN had at its opening.

So if the ACCN does hit around the 5 to 6 million mark per school payout in the first year then 3 million that was given from ESPN to the ACC for not having a network will be missed resulting in a NET addition of 2 to 3 million over the existing payouts.

A higher rate will be based on demand for the ACCN. If you rally your alums to demand it, as the SEC did, and you make an impact your rate will be adjusted upward and your rate for the second year will be higher, especially within your footprint.

So, expectations in the 8 to 10 million range is not necessarily far fetched in 5 years.

Well, as has been mentioned at least one AD (I thought it was two, but haven't found the second one yet) thinks it will be $8-10 million very early on (I took that to mean first or second year at the latest) and $10-15 "down the road". In college athletics, as you know 5 years is about the upper limit of "down the road". If one is waiting for the $10-15 million range to begin 8-10 years down the road, we are into dangerous conference realignment times, imho.

Quote:I think it took the SECN 3 years to hit its stride, but the initial high demand did assist our rate. Remember that our rate is 1.30 inside our footprint and .25 cents out of the footprint. Our average rate for all subscribers is .74 cents as illustrate in the diagram posted above. I think it is not unreasonable for the ACC in footprint rate to be around 60 to 65 cents (or upwards with initial high demand) and 10 to 15 cents outside of your footprint bringing in an average of around .25 to 30 cents for the first year.

My feelings exactly. Which is why I tend to be in the group that sees it being in the $5-7 million per team - and have been for a while now.

Quote:So there's no need to feel like chicken little, nor is there cause for irrational exuberance. But 5 years out you'll all be glad you were a part of it. I don't know how the start up costs will be handled for you guys but it sounds to me like you are following our plan where the schools fronted the costs. It's ESPN's portion of the start up that will be split 50/50 in the first year's payouts and that will probably eat another 2 to 3 million per school which I included in my guess that your first year payout would be around 5 to 6 million minus your 3 million per school for not having a network and prorated for 50% of ESPN's startup costs over the first couple of years.

That's really the reason that the SECN didn't jump to paying out 7 million per school the first couple of years.

The main thing that is beneficial is that by the time your contract expires with ESPN, should streaming be the way of life, each of your schools will be ready to distribute their own product. So at worst you are being weened for self production, which is a good thing. At best 10 million per school is not unreachable in the time it would take to matriculate an incoming class.

Not sure about your SECN profits. Back in 2014-15 (the first year of the CFP, so no Sugar Bowl monies that year), the per team payout increased over $10 million per team, and according to this linked article "The significant jump in revenue this year is thanks in large part to the SEC Network, which is currently in its ninth month."

SECN 2014-15 projected conference payouts

By the way I don't mention this to imply that the ACCN should do as well as the SECN did its first year, just as a possibility you may be underestimated how truly successful the SECN was from its initial year onward.

Of course articles like these have been known to be wrong before, but usually they are getting the information from someone in the conference.

Cheers,
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2018 10:27 PM by OrangeDude.)
05-02-2018 10:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: ACC Network info from Pitt
(05-02-2018 10:22 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 03:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-02-2018 02:49 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  My own take on what I think will happen is that ESPN Classic and ESPNews will go away some time in the future entirely regardless of what happens with the ACCN. Disney/ESPN will hope to get the ACCN on with approximately 60M subscribers with an average rate of 25 cents for an annual take its first year of $180M which when divided 50/50 will leave $90M for the ACC to divide up between 15 members resulting in $6 million per team initially.

Now ESPN loses $$$ in the above scenario, but I think they see the writing on the wall in terms of the decline of the cable subscriber model and will ultimately want to be left with the networks capable of providing/showing the best product - ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, and ACCN, although I could imagine ESPNU becoming ESPN3 to allow for it to be an overflow channel for a lot of sports instead of just college sports.

As always, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

I think the ACCN starts with fewer subs but higher rate... close to the $0.74 SECN gets, but possibly less total subs - especially outside the footprint. I have no idea what the initial revenue will come out to be at this point - too many changing variables.

The ACC currently gets how much from ESPN for not having a network? 2 to 3 million a year? There's your reason for the remarks of about we may not make much more than we do currently at the inception.

Well that could indeed be it, which I didn't think about. But even assuming that rumor was true, I thought it wasn't suppose to start until this year. So I doubt we will know for sure until the 2017-18 Form 990 is filed. But if true, that will help explain the quote to me. So thanks.

Quote:Let's say that Neil is correct and .25 cents is closer to the initial subscription fee. It's less than the Big 10 but more than double the average rates of the in footprint and out of footprint rates of the PAC.

Plus you have to add in the factor that you may be getting a slightly different rate for that portion of the SEC footprint you are bundled to. That's a perk over what the SECN had at its opening.

So if the ACCN does hit around the 5 to 6 million mark per school payout in the first year then 3 million that was given from ESPN to the ACC for not having a network will be missed resulting in a NET addition of 2 to 3 million over the existing payouts.

A higher rate will be based on demand for the ACCN. If you rally your alums to demand it, as the SEC did, and you make an impact your rate will be adjusted upward and your rate for the second year will be higher, especially within your footprint.

So, expectations in the 8 to 10 million range is not necessarily far fetched in 5 years.

Well, as has been mentioned at least one AD (I thought it was two, but haven't found the second one yet) thinks it will be $8-10 million very early on (I took that to mean first or second year at the latest) and $10-15 "down the road". In college athletics, as you know 5 years is about the upper limit of "down the road". If one is waiting for the $10-15 million range to begin 8-10 years down the road, we are into dangerous conference realignment times, imho.

Quote:I think it took the SECN 3 years to hit its stride, but the initial high demand did assist our rate. Remember that our rate is 1.30 inside our footprint and .25 cents out of the footprint. Our average rate for all subscribers is .74 cents as illustrate in the diagram posted above. I think it is not unreasonable for the ACC in footprint rate to be around 60 to 65 cents (or upwards with initial high demand) and 10 to 15 cents outside of your footprint bringing in an average of around .25 to 30 cents for the first year.

My feelings exactly. Which is why I tend to be in the group that sees it being in the $5-7 million per team - and have been for a while now.

Quote:So there's no need to feel like chicken little, nor is there cause for irrational exuberance. But 5 years out you'll all be glad you were a part of it. I don't know how the start up costs will be handled for you guys but it sounds to me like you are following our plan where the schools fronted the costs. It's ESPN's portion of the start up that will be split 50/50 in the first year's payouts and that will probably eat another 2 to 3 million per school which I included in my guess that your first year payout would be around 5 to 6 million minus your 3 million per school for not having a network and prorated for 50% of ESPN's startup costs over the first couple of years.

That's really the reason that the SECN didn't jump to paying out 7 million per school the first couple of years.

The main thing that is beneficial is that by the time your contract expires with ESPN, should streaming be the way of life, each of your schools will be ready to distribute their own product. So at worst you are being weened for self production, which is a good thing. At best 10 million per school is not unreachable in the time it would take to matriculate an incoming class.

Not sure about your SECN profits. Back in 2014-15 (the first year of the CFP, so no Sugar Bowl monies that year), the per team payout increased over $10 million per team, and according to this linked article "The significant jump in revenue this year is thanks in large part to the SEC Network, which is currently in its ninth month."

SECN 2014-15 projected conference payouts

By the way I don't mention this to imply that the ACCN should do as well as the SECN did its first year, just as a possibility you may be underestimated how truly successful the SECN was from its initial year onward.

Of course articles like these have been known to be wrong before, but usually they are getting the information from someone in the conference.

Cheers,

I was told our opening was in the 7 million range. It might have been higher except for the start up portion for 50% of ESPN's. So if your rate is roughly half of our opening rate and you get a perk from the shared footprint for the ACCN/SECN I think we are still talking 5 to 6 million minus the 3 and the prorated 50% of ESPN's overhead if that is part of your responsibility.

The factor the ACC can control to some extent is the initial demand which will drive your rates higher. That's where your focus should be over the next year. Our collective contracts seem to accrete around 2 million a year in per school payouts. I would think that yours will accrete around 1.5.
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2018 10:58 PM by JRsec.)
05-02-2018 10:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.