Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21

    Join Date
    October 08, 1999
    Posts
    1,302
    You should probably drop the mic after such an emphatic post!

  2. #22

    Join Date
    November 06, 2001
    Posts
    8,997
    The boys at the Duck Commander warehouse seem to have done alright if success is a reflection of previous brainstorming sessions.
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    The ACC's initial planned expansion was built around TV markets - that's all we heard. Yet, the ACC is one of the last major conferences to actually pursue its own network? As the Big Ten's network began to take off, why didn't the ACC invite two from this TV market-heavy group: Rutgers, Syracuse, & Pitt? They sat on their hands and we missed out on Rutgers, and lost Maryland. How attractive would a 14 member ACC that dominated the entire Atlantic Coast been to Notre Dame in 2010? How about Penn State?

    So now Swoff is mulling an ACC network ("it's business analysis, that's what it is"). I just can't understand whether it's ACC leadership or university presidents that are terminally reactionary. Will we get our TV network in 2017, just as FTTH initiatives render it obsolete?

    Let's hold our breath and hope Texas joins, or that Notre Dames comes fully aboard. That still doesn't mean that the ACC hasn't pissed away millions through inaction/cluelessness. When I imagine the ACC annual meetings, I see it as something like a brainstorming session on Duck Dynasty.

  3. #23
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by 33laszlo99 View Post
    Forgive, please, the pessimistic view, but hear me out before you react. I think the prospects for a successful ACC network were dramatically diminished when no FB or mens' BB rights were retained by the conference in the ESPN deal. I think this was done to position Raycom as the only choice as the ACC partner in the eventual network. Swofford made sure Raycom got a chunk of content and the conference didn't.

    Some harsh realities:

    All FB and men's BB rights have been asigned to ESPN for $260 ($280?) million per year until 2027
    Raycom acquired some FB and BB games from ESPN for $50 million per year (same duration as above)
    Fox acquired some FB and BB games from Raycom (yes, same interval)
    All three of the above parties have legitimate reason to maintain status quo

    Raycom's 17 FB and 35 BB games plus non-revenue sports would be the "live sports" content for an ACC network. (assuming Raycom hasn't given long-term license to YES for some of those games) TV consultants can, and probably already did, calculate the demand for a cable channel in the ACC footprint and beyond. Perhaps the conference has already shopped the cable carriers to get a view of the carriage landscape. Maybe they know about how much $$$ they can get and whether it's enough.

    The ACC network could be deployed at any time with the conference and Raycom as partners. But limited FB content makes it difficult to gain carriage. Can the negotiation of carriage agreements drag on until its no longer sustainable? Can the expense of reacquiring content from FOX make it unprofitable?

    Swofford tells us this needs study, consideration, etc. He probably already knows the answer.

    Some more more harsh realities:

    Temple is not in the ACC
    Connecticut is not in the ACC
    Navy is not in the ACC
    Notre Dame FB is not in the ACC
    Texas is not in the ACC
    There is no "Western Pod" in the ACC
    Why this constant chant to add more and more schools? The current lineup aint so bad.

    The ACC network will be built upon the current member schools. (not an absolute)
    i think we need to work with ESPN for the network to have Disney help us leverage carriage. Raycom would be going it alone and have very little leverage with the cable providers.

    My guess on long-term solution: ESPN is our sole partner for ACC Network (Cable Channel), Raycom remains the ACC Digital Network Partner, but we significantly grow the scope of what the ACC Digital Network is beyond what it is today to a 24/7 dedicated web channel that includes FAR more content than today (i envision like acc.tv or accsports.tv or something).

    as far as buying back content, if Raycom does remain a partner, we really only need to go to Fox for buy back. i believe they sold some of their inventory to YES, so Fox buys back from YES and then we buy back from FOX and simultaneously rework the Raycom deal (obviously in Raycom's favor) so they move their content to a digital only platform and ESPN gets the TV rights back. we will have to pay for Raycom breaking a lot of distribution contracts with their various regional partners, but i think those are 1 year deals that renew and are based mostly on ad-rev sharing, so it shouldn't be too bad. it will cost the ACC some money up front, for sure, but it won't take long to recoup the expenses.

    With ESPN as a partner, we could still see an ACC Network by the start of 2015. without ESPN, it could be 2016 or 2017 at best, and we may not be happy with the carriage it gets.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  4. #24

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by 33laszlo99 View Post
    Forgive, please, the pessimistic view, but hear me out before you react. I think the prospects for a successful ACC network were dramatically diminished when no FB or mens' BB rights were retained by the conference in the ESPN deal. I think this was done to position Raycom as the only choice as the ACC partner in the eventual network. Swofford made sure Raycom got a chunk of content and the conference didn't.

    Some harsh realities:

    All FB and men's BB rights have been asigned to ESPN for $260 ($280?) million per year until 2027
    Raycom acquired some FB and BB games from ESPN for $50 million per year (same duration as above)
    Fox acquired some FB and BB games from Raycom (yes, same interval)
    All three of the above parties have legitimate reason to maintain status quo

    Raycom's 17 FB and 35 BB games plus non-revenue sports would be the "live sports" content for an ACC network. (assuming Raycom hasn't given long-term license to YES for some of those games) TV consultants can, and probably already did, calculate the demand for a cable channel in the ACC footprint and beyond. Perhaps the conference has already shopped the cable carriers to get a view of the carriage landscape. Maybe they know about how much $$$ they can get and whether it's enough.

    The ACC network could be deployed at any time with the conference and Raycom as partners. But limited FB content makes it difficult to gain carriage. Can the negotiation of carriage agreements drag on until its no longer sustainable? Can the expense of reacquiring content from FOX make it unprofitable?

    Swofford tells us this needs study, consideration, etc. He probably already knows the answer.

    Some more more harsh realities:

    Temple is not in the ACC
    Connecticut is not in the ACC
    Navy is not in the ACC
    Notre Dame FB is not in the ACC
    Texas is not in the ACC
    There is no "Western Pod" in the ACC
    Why this constant chant to add more and more schools? The current lineup aint so bad.

    The ACC network will be built upon the current member schools. (not an absolute)
    The TV consultants the ACC has been using are awful. They are the ones that assured Greensboro that BC would "deliver" Boston.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    i think we need to work with ESPN for the network to have Disney help us leverage carriage. Raycom would be going it alone and have very little leverage with the cable providers.

    My guess on long-term solution: ESPN is our sole partner for ACC Network (Cable Channel), Raycom remains the ACC Digital Network Partner, but we significantly grow the scope of what the ACC Digital Network is beyond what it is today to a 24/7 dedicated web channel that includes FAR more content than today (i envision like acc.tv or accsports.tv or something).

    as far as buying back content, if Raycom does remain a partner, we really only need to go to Fox for buy back. i believe they sold some of their inventory to YES, so Fox buys back from YES and then we buy back from FOX and simultaneously rework the Raycom deal (obviously in Raycom's favor) so they move their content to a digital only platform and ESPN gets the TV rights back. we will have to pay for Raycom breaking a lot of distribution contracts with their various regional partners, but i think those are 1 year deals that renew and are based mostly on ad-rev sharing, so it shouldn't be too bad. it will cost the ACC some money up front, for sure, but it won't take long to recoup the expenses.

    With ESPN as a partner, we could still see an ACC Network by the start of 2015. without ESPN, it could be 2016 or 2017 at best, and we may not be happy with the carriage it gets.
    EVERYBODY knew this day was coming. So why sell off those rights in the first place? Now, he's discussion the problematic nature of "reacquiring" them. They just sold the things a year or two ago AFTER the B1G was making a ton of money. And guess who will benefit from essentially flipping these rights after two or three seasons. Raycom, which is run by the guy's son. You almost couldn't make this stuff up.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
    The ACC's initial planned expansion was built around TV markets - that's all we heard. Yet, the ACC is one of the last major conferences to actually pursue its own network? As the Big Ten's network began to take off, why didn't the ACC invite two from this TV market-heavy group: Rutgers, Syracuse, & Pitt? They sat on their hands and we missed out on Rutgers, and lost Maryland. How attractive would a 14 member ACC that dominated the entire Atlantic Coast been to Notre Dame in 2010? How about Penn State?

    So now Swoff is mulling an ACC network ("it's business analysis, that's what it is"). I just can't understand whether it's ACC leadership or university presidents that are terminally reactionary. Will we get our TV network in 2017, just as FTTH initiatives render it obsolete?

    Let's hold our breath and hope Texas joins, or that Notre Dames comes fully aboard. That still doesn't mean that the ACC hasn't pissed away millions through inaction/cluelessness. When I imagine the ACC annual meetings, I see it as something like a brainstorming session on Duck Dynasty.
    Hey, there's a lot of golfing & ND butt kissing to be done at those meetings. I'm still waiting on some sort of legitimate ACC academic collaboration to occur. As far as I can tell, there's about $20,000/yr spent in that department by the league.

  7. #27
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    EVERYBODY knew this day was coming. So why sell off those rights in the first place? Now, he's discussion the problematic nature of "reacquiring" them. They just sold the things a year or two ago AFTER the B1G was making a ton of money. And guess who will benefit from essentially flipping these rights after two or three seasons. Raycom, which is run by the guy's son. You almost couldn't make this stuff up.
    ESPN sold rights to Raycom, not us. Sure, we told ESPN Raycom was our preferred partner, but we didn't sell those rights. ESPN had to sell off what they weren't going to use in order to justify the costs of the agreement with the ACC. once Raycom held rights, we could not tell them who they could or could not sell them to. they sold some to Fox. Fox sports had the opportunity to sell rights to a partner in a market they don't compete with (YES), so they did, and we couldn't stop them.

    everyone else isn't going to just sit in a holding pattern with their business while we work with ESPN on a plan. The SEC had JUST sold a bunch of bundled rights as well as schools selling off individual 3rd tier rights as recently as 2011, which is also well after the BTN and during their negotiations with ESPN on an SECN. we're not unique in our situation. we (and our partners) couldn't just sit on rights that are worth money now while we talk with ESPN.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  8. #28

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    ESPN sold rights to Raycom, not us. Sure, we told ESPN Raycom was our preferred partner, but we didn't sell those rights. ESPN had to sell off what they weren't going to use in order to justify the costs of the agreement with the ACC. once Raycom held rights, we could not tell them who they could or could not sell them to. they sold some to Fox. Fox sports had the opportunity to sell rights to a partner in a market they don't compete with (YES), so they did, and we couldn't stop them.

    everyone else isn't going to just sit in a holding pattern with their business while we work with ESPN on a plan. The SEC had JUST sold a bunch of bundled rights as well as schools selling off individual 3rd tier rights as recently as 2011, which is also well after the BTN and during their negotiations with ESPN on an SECN. we're not unique in our situation. we (and our partners) couldn't just sit on rights that are worth money now while we talk with ESPN.
    You're right. I remember it being spoken of as a throw in, but everybody here knew those had some value. I believe Texas had already signed their deal proving tier 3 stuff could be profitable and I also think us practically giving them away was brought up by the FSu folks when complaining about the ACC. Just another reason that ACC-ESPN deal is a joke.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    October 29, 2001
    Posts
    7,455
    Quote Originally Posted by HOO86 View Post
    I think you and I have discussed earlier in another thread about Pittsburgh not carrying the entire State of Pennsylvania. Only Penn State does this. I would love to have Penn State in the ACC. But if that is not a possibility, if the ACC wants the Philadelphia market, Temple is the only game in town. Temple would definitely be second fiddle in Philadelphia at the college level to Penn State, but Georgia Tech is to the Georgia Bulldogs in Atlanta too. Raycom is having trouble getting distribution on the Philadelphia Local Sports Nets like Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia, which carries the Phillies. Raycom does have one Philadelphia Fox broadcast station carrying some of the Raycom package.

    I went online doing a little research about Temple. If they would step it up a notch, they have potential. It's a large school. I remember Georgia Tech stunk at basketball when they joined the ACC. And Florida State has grown into a well rounded athletic department since being in the ACC. When they joined, they were football and baseball only. Their olympic sports have vastly improved. So it can be done. While doing my research, I came across Temple's football promotion for this year. I'll link it for anyone interested. I especially like the sack of the Maryland Quarterback at the end and the kickoff return at Louisville.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYwjqQvUm8g

    I believe that Temple would get the ACC on the air in Philadelphia at least. Then they would need a marketing plan to grow the interest. With the loss of Baltimore due to Maryland's defection, the ACC has taken a hit in the Mid-Atlantic. Philadelphia would be a nice regain of territory. It would also get the ACC coverage on both ends of Pennsylvania. Temple University has 38,000students and 200,000 plus living alumni. One would think that the ACC and Temple could do some marketing to get them excited at least a little bit. They have quality basketball and are spending money on their football program. The ACC needs to make a decision on whether it wants that market. And as you point out, Connecticut locks down the New England area and the north side of New York City. So there are some choices and trade offs. I hope they do the proper market analysis for the ACC Network because I want the ACC to have one.
    Logical post, but I just can't get my brain to accept that idea that Temple might be a good addition. They've been the poster boy for fan apathy for quite some time. Logically, your post make sense, but my otherwise logical brain is just rejecting the thought.

  10. #30
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Late 80s Hokie View Post
    Logical post, but I just can't get my brain to accept that idea that Temple might be a good addition. They've been the poster boy for fan apathy for quite some time. Logically, your post make sense, but my otherwise logical brain is just rejecting the thought.
    i do not believe Temple is a viable ACC candidate now or anytime in the next 10 years. a lot would have to change IMO. The ACC could find more creative ways to win mindshare in Philly than inviting Temple.

    - play the ACC Tournament there from time to time.

    - arrange home and homes with Big5 programs to showcase dook, 'cuse, UNC, L'ville, ND, etc in Philly.

    - Move dook, wake, Miami, 'cuse and BC home football games vs ND to Philly once in a while

    - Host an ACC preseason or Christmas tourney in Philly and/or Atlantic City

    - Schedule neutral site football OOC games at the Linc vs PSU, Rutgers, or even some west coast schools (USC-w, Oregon, BYU, etc) who are always looking for east coast exposure

    all of these would have the same potential payoff with much lower risk than inviting Temple IMO. even in bball, Temple is, at best, the 3rd most popular bball program in town behind the Sixers and Villanova. they are neck and neck ahead of StJoes for that 3rd spot depending on each program's recent successes...in football, Temple is a distant afterthought behind the iggles, PSU, ND, and the Giants. i think tOSU and Michigan might even come in ahead of Temple now that i think about it.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •