What if the ACC were to create a partnership with the B12? Something like an ACC/B12 challenge for each sport.

The B12 gets some sort of access the ACCN (with some sort of revenue), some scheduling help, and presumably some stability.

The ACC/ACCN potentially gets ~40,000,000 new viewers, additional content, and access to the state of Texas. A more stable B12 benefits the ACC.

I don't believe B12 fans are going to line up to watch ACC games or ACC fans are going to line up to watch B12 games. You might get a few viewers if your school is scheduled to play one of those teams in the future (with a scheduling agreement).

On a similar note, the ACCN could become the go to network for LAX or soccer. The B12 doesn't sponsor those sports so the ACC could offer associate memberships to select schools.

If you're going to do that, why not just bring the SEC in and claim total dominance over the states where college sports matters most?

How about a per-sport TV partnership/challenge/whatever?

Football: 1/2 ACC/SEC and 1/2 ACC/B1G
Basketball: ACC/B1G
Baseball: ACC/SEC
Lacrosse: ACC/B1G
etc.

(01-27-2017 09:17 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  What if the ACC were to create a partnership with the B12? Something like an ACC/B12 challenge for each sport.

The B12 gets some sort of access the ACCN (with some sort of revenue), some scheduling help, and presumably some stability.

The ACC/ACCN potentially gets ~40,000,000 new viewers, additional content, and access to the state of Texas. A more stable B12 benefits the ACC.

I don't believe B12 fans are going to line up to watch ACC games or ACC fans are going to line up to watch B12 games. You might get a few viewers if your school is scheduled to play one of those teams in the future (with a scheduling agreement).

On a similar note, the ACCN could become the go to network for LAX or soccer. The B12 doesn't sponsor those sports so the ACC could offer associate memberships to select schools.

Better idea: the ACC doesn't do that.

You're looking at revenue, but you're ignoring costs. Also, partnerships/challenges are good ideas to the extent that there is some kind of inherent interesting storyline. What's the storyline w/ the B12?

Sure if the big12 plays all there games on Monday through Wednesday they can be on our network.

I'm just wondering when ESPN is gonna start hiring ACC talking heads like it did/has for the SEC for this supposed ACC Network.

I'm guess the ACC Network is more like the ACC network hosted by the SEC Network and it's 20 something SEC talking heads. Wonder how that is gonna turn out.

(01-28-2017 07:09 AM)nole Wrote:  I'm just wondering when ESPN is gonna start hiring ACC talking heads like it did/has for the SEC for this supposed ACC Network.

I'm guess the ACC Network is more like the ACC network hosted by the SEC Network and it's 20 something SEC talking heads. Wonder how that is gonna turn out.

ESPN's treatment of the ACC has been much better lately. It was terrible about 3 years ago, but the mouse is warming up.

I don't think that we'll be treated unfairly.

I know I didn't provide a lot of details. That's because I don't have a clear picture of how such an arrangement would work. I would oppose any plan that has the ACC/N developing media facilities for the B12 so cost should be minimal. Scheduling priority would favor the ACC.

What I see is a way for the ACC/N to get some access to UT, OU and the state of Texas without all the baggage. The ACC averages 7 football games per week. That's 28 hours of programming. Adding a couple of games from the B12 (yes during the week) would provide content.

(01-28-2017 09:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I know I didn't provide a lot of details. That's because I don't have a clear picture of how such an arrangement would work. I would oppose any plan that has the ACC/N developing media facilities for the B12 so cost should be minimal. Scheduling priority would favor the ACC.

What I see is a way for the ACC/N to get some access to UT, OU and the state of Texas without all the baggage. The ACC averages 7 football games per week. That's 28 hours of programming. Adding a couple of games from the B12 (yes during the week) would provide content.

The AAC would give you weekday games & access to Texas at a fraction of the cost. Plus there would be more mutual interest as they share a portion of our footprint & contain rivals. If the ACC were to do some sort of network alliance with another conference, the AAC wouldn't be able to demand as much as the Big 12. They would be desperate enough to fill in the time slots that the ACC teams least desire, Thursday & Fridays. Maybe even some Tuesday games.

(01-28-2017 09:55 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 09:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I know I didn't provide a lot of details. That's because I don't have a clear picture of how such an arrangement would work. I would oppose any plan that has the ACC/N developing media facilities for the B12 so cost should be minimal. Scheduling priority would favor the ACC.

What I see is a way for the ACC/N to get some access to UT, OU and the state of Texas without all the baggage. The ACC averages 7 football games per week. That's 28 hours of programming. Adding a couple of games from the B12 (yes during the week) would provide content.

The AAC would give you weekday games & access to Texas at a fraction of the cost. Plus there would be more mutual interest as they share a portion of our footprint & contain rivals. If the ACC were to do some sort of network alliance with another conference, the AAC wouldn't be able to demand as much as the Big 12. They would be desperate enough to fill in the time slots that the ACC teams least desire, Thursday & Fridays. Maybe even some Tuesday games.

Elevating the AAC would be a terrible idea, and I think that would be the result of putting AAC games on the ACC network.

The ACC network should be exclusively ACC, and it should be bundled w/ the SECN and probably other ESPN properties.

Interesting out of the box thinking there.

Texas is the market you want in that conference. The rest is meh. (And this is from someone who's family is significantly tied to Kansas State -- which I believe is an undervalued program, but Manhattan Kansas is Manhattan Kansas - a nice place, but hardly bringing eyeballs to a network).

I think the ACC would rather not give the Big XII a life boat. The Big XII kills us with their Sugar Bowl tie in, versus our arrangement with the Orange Bowl.

If the ACC could swipe Texas away from the Big XII (by giving them a Notre Dame type deal), I think you would get what matters in the Big XII in terms of markets (not to mention folding in the Longhorn Network into the ACC network - a win for ESPN), AND you could re-arrange the bowl partnerships where we could add a Sugar Bowl tie in, on top of our Orange Bowl situation. With 14 football playing schools PLUS an arrangement with Texas and Notre Dame, you could satisfy both an Orange and Sugar bowl situation.

So I don't see the ACC doing anything to prop up the Big XII.

Like every other conference, the ACC has eyes on Texas. And would covet bringing them into the conference.

(01-28-2017 10:59 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 09:55 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 09:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I know I didn't provide a lot of details. That's because I don't have a clear picture of how such an arrangement would work. I would oppose any plan that has the ACC/N developing media facilities for the B12 so cost should be minimal. Scheduling priority would favor the ACC.

What I see is a way for the ACC/N to get some access to UT, OU and the state of Texas without all the baggage. The ACC averages 7 football games per week. That's 28 hours of programming. Adding a couple of games from the B12 (yes during the week) would provide content.

The AAC would give you weekday games & access to Texas at a fraction of the cost. Plus there would be more mutual interest as they share a portion of our footprint & contain rivals. If the ACC were to do some sort of network alliance with another conference, the AAC wouldn't be able to demand as much as the Big 12. They would be desperate enough to fill in the time slots that the ACC teams least desire, Thursday & Fridays. Maybe even some Tuesday games.

Elevating the AAC would be a terrible idea, and I think that would be the result of putting AAC games on the ACC network.

The ACC network should be exclusively ACC, and it should be bundled w/ the SECN and probably other ESPN properties.

I agree that IF the ACCN is bundled with anyone then it should be with the SECN. My comments were directed at bundling it with the Big 12. It would be worse for the ACC to elevate the Big 12 than the AAC, you would simply be reinforcing their hold on the top of the G5 while also getting into Texas. Getting the Longhorns without bundling with anyone would be the best option.

True, the ACC Network will need 24/7 content, but it doesn't have to be all live football. There are other sports in the Fall, like soccer, which could air Sunday thru Wednesday. Then you have coaches shows, game replays, classic games, and studio shows.

No need for a partner conference, IMO. Plus, if you need ooc games, the SEC and Big Ten are better.


Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-28-2017 11:56 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:59 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 09:55 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 09:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I know I didn't provide a lot of details. That's because I don't have a clear picture of how such an arrangement would work. I would oppose any plan that has the ACC/N developing media facilities for the B12 so cost should be minimal. Scheduling priority would favor the ACC.

What I see is a way for the ACC/N to get some access to UT, OU and the state of Texas without all the baggage. The ACC averages 7 football games per week. That's 28 hours of programming. Adding a couple of games from the B12 (yes during the week) would provide content.

The AAC would give you weekday games & access to Texas at a fraction of the cost. Plus there would be more mutual interest as they share a portion of our footprint & contain rivals. If the ACC were to do some sort of network alliance with another conference, the AAC wouldn't be able to demand as much as the Big 12. They would be desperate enough to fill in the time slots that the ACC teams least desire, Thursday & Fridays. Maybe even some Tuesday games.

Elevating the AAC would be a terrible idea, and I think that would be the result of putting AAC games on the ACC network.

The ACC network should be exclusively ACC, and it should be bundled w/ the SECN and probably other ESPN properties.

I agree that IF the ACCN is bundled with anyone then it should be with the SECN. My comments were directed at bundling it with the Big 12. It would be worse for the ACC to elevate the Big 12 than the AAC, you would simply be reinforcing their hold on the top of the G5 while also getting into Texas. Getting the Longhorns without bundling with anyone would be the best option.

The B12 wouldn't be elevated. They're already a P5 conference. I think that the ACC is better, but we're not on a different level. Also, their recruiting area doesn't overlap ours. It wouldn't matter as much if they were elevated.

I think that we'd be best off keeping the ACCN and ACC-only affair and bundling the channel w/ other channels that have complementary deman covariances. Those channels are most likely the SECN, the BTN, Fox Sports family and ESPN family. But for legal reasons, ESPN and the SECN are our two options.

(01-28-2017 12:55 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 11:56 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:59 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 09:55 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 09:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I know I didn't provide a lot of details. That's because I don't have a clear picture of how such an arrangement would work. I would oppose any plan that has the ACC/N developing media facilities for the B12 so cost should be minimal. Scheduling priority would favor the ACC.

What I see is a way for the ACC/N to get some access to UT, OU and the state of Texas without all the baggage. The ACC averages 7 football games per week. That's 28 hours of programming. Adding a couple of games from the B12 (yes during the week) would provide content.

The AAC would give you weekday games & access to Texas at a fraction of the cost. Plus there would be more mutual interest as they share a portion of our footprint & contain rivals. If the ACC were to do some sort of network alliance with another conference, the AAC wouldn't be able to demand as much as the Big 12. They would be desperate enough to fill in the time slots that the ACC teams least desire, Thursday & Fridays. Maybe even some Tuesday games.

Elevating the AAC would be a terrible idea, and I think that would be the result of putting AAC games on the ACC network.

The ACC network should be exclusively ACC, and it should be bundled w/ the SECN and probably other ESPN properties.

I agree that IF the ACCN is bundled with anyone then it should be with the SECN. My comments were directed at bundling it with the Big 12. It would be worse for the ACC to elevate the Big 12 than the AAC, you would simply be reinforcing their hold on the top of the G5 while also getting into Texas. Getting the Longhorns without bundling with anyone would be the best option.

The B12 wouldn't be elevated. They're already a P5 conference. I think that the ACC is better, but we're not on a different level. Also, their recruiting area doesn't overlap ours. It wouldn't matter as much if they were elevated.

I think that we'd be best off keeping the ACCN and ACC-only affair and bundling the channel w/ other channels that have complementary deman covariances. Those channels are most likely the SECN, the BTN, Fox Sports family and ESPN family. But for legal reasons, ESPN and the SECN are our two options.

Substitute elevate for stabilized then. Either way, helping out the Big 12 isn't good for the ACC.

(01-28-2017 01:05 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 12:55 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 11:56 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 10:59 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 09:55 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The AAC would give you weekday games & access to Texas at a fraction of the cost. Plus there would be more mutual interest as they share a portion of our footprint & contain rivals. If the ACC were to do some sort of network alliance with another conference, the AAC wouldn't be able to demand as much as the Big 12. They would be desperate enough to fill in the time slots that the ACC teams least desire, Thursday & Fridays. Maybe even some Tuesday games.

Elevating the AAC would be a terrible idea, and I think that would be the result of putting AAC games on the ACC network.

The ACC network should be exclusively ACC, and it should be bundled w/ the SECN and probably other ESPN properties.

I agree that IF the ACCN is bundled with anyone then it should be with the SECN. My comments were directed at bundling it with the Big 12. It would be worse for the ACC to elevate the Big 12 than the AAC, you would simply be reinforcing their hold on the top of the G5 while also getting into Texas. Getting the Longhorns without bundling with anyone would be the best option.

The B12 wouldn't be elevated. They're already a P5 conference. I think that the ACC is better, but we're not on a different level. Also, their recruiting area doesn't overlap ours. It wouldn't matter as much if they were elevated.

I think that we'd be best off keeping the ACCN and ACC-only affair and bundling the channel w/ other channels that have complementary deman covariances. Those channels are most likely the SECN, the BTN, Fox Sports family and ESPN family. But for legal reasons, ESPN and the SECN are our two options.

Substitute elevate for stabilized then. Either way, helping out the Big 12 isn't good for the ACC.

Agreed - I think that the ACCN should stay 100% ACC.

I don't want to see The ACC assist The Big 12 in surviving. I believe The Big 12 is dead conference walking. The ACC is better off watching The Big 12 get parted out like an old Chevy.

If the shoe was on the other foot, The Big 12 would be looking to squeeze the life out of The ACC.
CJ

I would think the only league that could work is Hockey East if only because first BC is a member and second the ACC currently doesn't have hockey.

(01-29-2017 11:10 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  I would think the only league that could work is Hockey East if only because first BC is a member and second the ACC currently doesn't have hockey.

Agreed, but even so, I'd only be interested in showing hockey games involving BC or Notre Dame (or other ACC teams if any of them play hockey).

If the ACCDN is used to drive ACCN numbers then perhaps placing the partner only on the Digital side would make some sense?