be starkly different than it is today. Right now fans have the opportunity to watch most of the big games in their conference on a national tv channel. They already pay for cable so watching the games seems like a given and the ACC having a separate channel to air third tier games seems unlikely since those games don't "move the needle." But what happens once cable bundles are split up? No one seems to be considering the impact unbundling will have on the B1G and SEC while at the same time arguing that the ACC shouldn't have a channel because of the unbundling era.

Here's what I see. Once ESPN and Fox are no longer automatically included in cable bundles everyone will have to change their model or expectations. This includes the B1G and SEC. Unbundling will have a negative impact on their bottom line and likely be a significant decrease in monies coming in. Once this happens every conference will need a channel to distribute content. ESPN will be forced to find a way to monetize their inventory because they won't be making more money by not airing games which is the current situation for the ACC. Currently ESPN would have to spend money to air those games and not make enough back to justify the cost so they sell those off to Raycom or a regional sports network for a relatively small fee and save themselves the risk and effort.

I think this all changes in the next few years. Without the bundled money ESPN will be forced to find a way to make money off the properties they already own. How will they do that? I don't know but I can see a scenario where every conference has it's own channel. You'll have ESPN for say 20.00 a month and each conference for an additional 5.00 or the whole package for 30.00.

An ACC network can be a part of the ESPN family but not require a full time schedule of games/shows to sell ads for by going to a streaming model. This costs much less than a linear channel. In essence consumers would pay for access to all of the ACC sports televised through an app or streaming service. Talk shows would likely be minimal since the cost to produce them would not necessarily result in increased ad dollars though maybe some would.

Here is where things get a little iffy. Conferences like the B1G will have huge alumni bases to market their content to and likely see plenty of subscribers from these massive schools regardless of how competitive they are on the field. The SEC would likely see some drop off in subscribers if everyone had to opt in to the channel unlike now where they have millions of "subscribers" who wouldn't pay for the channel if they had a choice. SEC schools aren't necessarily small but not B1G big. They will have plenty of people willing to pay to watch the best football but will that be through ESPN or the SEC network and will you be given the choice to have one without the other? The ACC and B12 are in the middle between the big schools of the B1G and the best football of the SEC. Some of our schools have compelling football programs, some are not. Some schools have large alumni bases, some do not. What the ACC has that the B12 doesn't is compelling programing outside of football. The B12 has some great basketball teams but since they have so few schools it's hard to see them using basketball to drive up subscriptions. However, ACC basketball is easily the most compelling and there are plenty of good games not televised on ESPN. Also, we have more schools and run up the east cost where millions of people live unlike the B12. These are big factors when considering having to sell a product to individuals not cable companies. We also have the best olympic sports in the country and while they don't bring in huge ratings there are plenty of people who would pay 5-10 dollars a month to watch their school play these sports. I would love to watch VT soccer play each week. I would happily pay the cost of a lunch once a month for access to those games.

Lastly, there are opportunities to market the channel to non-traditional ACC fans. How about a series of coaching clinics put on by ACC basketball coaches. I can see high school coaches across the country paying for those. How about replays that break down game film from a coaches perspective? This could be done fairly cheaply without all the over the top production of ESPN linear programing. Programs educating parents on how to get their student athlete into the recruiting circles. Interviews with AD's on how they run the programs, strength and conditioning training, and on and on. This is such a fundamental shift in philosophy from a linear tv channel and I think it changes more than we are expecting. There are so many ways to monetize a property like this that fall beyond traditional programing and I can't wait to see what the ACC and ESPN come up with.

[Post edited by ColumbusHokie at 06/06/2016 1:18PM]