Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

"above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

(05-15-2017 08:21 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

"above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

First, I said it was a very GOOD read, not a great read. But it is a good read because it sheds some educational light on the the ACCN whether it is positive news or negative news. And I noticed that you just glanced over this part:

"And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished."

Did you even bother to read the rest of the article, Mr glass half empty?

(05-15-2017 08:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:21 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

"above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

First, I said it was a very GOOD read, not a great read. But it is a good read because it sheds some educational light on the the ACCN whether it is positive news or negative news. And I noticed that you just glanced over this part:

"And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished."

Did you even bother to read the rest of the article, Mr glass half empty?

AND the name calling starts, Ironic, cause reread my post:

"Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'"


But you can't sign 20 year contracts with such a huge amount of uncertainty and guess work. Wasn't the WHOLE reason that it was taking so long was because they wanted to REMOVE the guess work?

This just doesn't pass the smell test. We have been on this Network watch for MANY years and we still get such odd, non logical information. I know this board just wants to do victory laps, but don't you find it odd we locked in for 2 decades with this thing?

I'm not a big fan of that author, I don't know that he always knows what he's talking about. That said, that's an interesting nugget he got at, comparing the ratings draw of the bottom half of the conference that would likely occupy the network. I don't ultimately know if that means anything or not for the bottom line success of the network, but it's a fresh take I haven't seen anywhere or thought of.

I frankly expect the ACC to do very well relative to the BTN because ESPN is behind it and will leverage the rest of their properties. They get more for the SEC Network than the BTN gets, despite the BTN being much older and more established. I am expecting the ACC to get less than the SEC, but close to the BTN. And they'll get it with pretty much full coverage from launch.

Obviously, that is predicated on ESPN not totally imploding. And it doesn't recognize the fact that the B1G has half ownership of their network, which the ACC won't. That said, if ESPN was to truly fail, the BTN will face the same issues, and owning half may not be any great asset.

I think it remains to be seen whether the long term deal was wise or not. The truth is, ever since 2010 the ACC has been chasing that dragon to try to keep pace after a bad contract (so has the SEC). I was a big advocate of the ACC just biting the bullet until the contract ran out and they could go to market, I thought it was the only way to EVENTUALLY get closer to the SEC/B1G. But that also meant eating a decade plus of massive and increasing deficits, which I also appreciate. At least this deal should put the ACC comfortably ahead of the PAC and Big 12. Could the ACC have withstood trailing the PAC and B12 by millions for a decade or more while they wait for their contract to run out? So there was no easy solution.

My gut tells me that continuously extending a bad deal just results in a longer bad deal. But on the other hand, if the TV bubble truly bursts, then the B1G could be miscalculating badly by having their contracts come up again in six years or whatever. I personally don't expect that...but some do.

We don't know what guarantees are built in to the 20-year extension, like we didn't know about the guaranteed money for not launching the ACC network this Summer until that clause kicked in. So being negative about it is just as speculative as doing victory laps - both are premature.

That said, this IS both informative and encouraging. It's nice to see positive press for a change!

(05-15-2017 08:21 AM)nole Wrote:  "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

always b!tching 'bout something ...
no matter you slice it ...
it's found money ...

HALF A LOAF BETTER THAN NO BREAD

(05-15-2017 09:30 AM)green Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:21 AM)nole Wrote:  "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

always b!tching 'bout something ...
no matter you slice it ...
it's found money ...

HALF A LOAF BETTER THAN NO BREAD

Whether it turns out to be a good deal or not, it's not "found money." Maryland exit fee is "found money." This is money the ACC is being paid for giving up an asset...extending future years on the contract.

(05-15-2017 09:35 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 09:30 AM)green Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:21 AM)nole Wrote:  "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

always b!tching 'bout something ...
no matter you slice it ...
it's found money ...

HALF A LOAF BETTER THAN NO BREAD

Whether it turns out to be a good deal or not, it's not "found money." Maryland exit fee is "found money." This is money the ACC is being paid for giving up an asset...extending future years on the contract.

SEMANTICS

(05-15-2017 09:08 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  The truth is, ever since 2010 the ACC has been chasing that dragon to try to keep pace after a bad contract (so has the SEC).

and I'm supposed to feel bad ...

MISERY LOVES COMPANY

(05-15-2017 08:21 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

"above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

Conference networks are far more about basketball than football because there's far more content to broadcast. Basketball is where the ACC shines. If you did the same sort of chart for basketball the ACC would be in a more dominate position than the SEC is in football. Think about it. Why is the B1G network making about as much money as the SEC network even though SEC football is far more popular than B1G football? It's because B1G basketball is far more popular than SEC basketball. And there's population. The ACC footprint includes the most population of any conference. More households equals more prospective customers for a conference network.

(05-15-2017 09:55 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:21 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

"above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

Conference networks are far more about basketball than football because there's far more content to broadcast. Basketball is where the ACC shines. If you did the same sort of chart for basketball the ACC would be in a more dominate position than the SEC is in football. Think about it. Why is the B1G network making about as much money as the SEC network even though SEC football is far more popular than B1G football? It's because B1G basketball is far more popular than SEC basketball. And there's population. The ACC footprint includes the most population of any conference. More households equals more prospective customers for a conference network.

IF it is about basketball (not disputing, just addressing that logic), then I would be concerned given ESPN just fired all of it's CBB media.

Given the cable subscription model is going away, the population of the conference is no longer the asset it was. The ACC was WELL positioned with the old ESPN model. Now that we are moving to digital stream model (most likely) it is about fan bases.

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

Thanks for the GOOD read.

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

Thanks cuseroc.
If we had known in 2010 that we could be neck and neck with the B1G in income within 10 years and ahead of the PAC and the Big 12 is surely would have saved a lot of angst.

(05-15-2017 10:02 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 09:55 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:21 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

"above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

Conference networks are far more about basketball than football because there's far more content to broadcast. Basketball is where the ACC shines. If you did the same sort of chart for basketball the ACC would be in a more dominate position than the SEC is in football. Think about it. Why is the B1G network making about as much money as the SEC network even though SEC football is far more popular than B1G football? It's because B1G basketball is far more popular than SEC basketball. And there's population. The ACC footprint includes the most population of any conference. More households equals more prospective customers for a conference network.

IF it is about basketball (not disputing, just addressing that logic), then I would be concerned given ESPN just fired all of it's CBB media.

Given the cable subscription model is going away, the population of the conference is no longer the asset it was. The ACC was WELL positioned with the old ESPN model. Now that we are moving to digital stream model (most likely) it is about fan bases.

What I think we will see in the future is ESPN focusing more on pro sports & leaving the college reporting to the conference networks. The schools will be providing the announcers, production, etc. You will still see the national shows on ESPNU & such but the conference networks will be far more involved & that will reduce their need for their own media & talking heads.

(05-15-2017 10:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  What I think we will see in the future is ESPN focusing more on pro sports & leaving the college reporting to the conference networks. The schools will be providing the announcers, production, etc. You will still see the national shows on ESPNU & such but the conference networks will be far more involved & that will reduce their need for their own media & talking heads.

I tend to agree. That means ESPN really only needs enough folks to produce a max of about 8 to 10 games each weekend... and maybe only 1 or 2 studio shows each week.

(05-15-2017 10:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 10:02 AM)nole Wrote:  IF it is about basketball (not disputing, just addressing that logic), then I would be concerned given ESPN just fired all of it's CBB media.

Given the cable subscription model is going away, the population of the conference is no longer the asset it was. The ACC was WELL positioned with the old ESPN model. Now that we are moving to digital stream model (most likely) it is about fan bases.

What I think we will see in the future is ESPN focusing more on pro sports & leaving the college reporting to the conference networks. The schools will be providing the announcers, production, etc. You will still see the national shows on ESPNU & such but the conference networks will be far more involved & that will reduce their need for their own media & talking heads.

I think Lenville hit the nail on the head with this point here.

There's lots of moving parts in the ESPN subscriber loss narrative, but there's some important pieces of information to consider that don't get talked about as much.

To expand on Lenville's point, all signs point to ESPN minimizing their investment risk in the ACC Network by making sure that each individual school has the production capabilities to put a quality broadcast on a network under the ESPN umbrella. I think Lenville is right in that the next step is likely that each ACC school will probably end up having some type of dedicated team to work the games. In a lot of ways, it almost makes more sense for each school to employ their own sideline reporter, production staff, etc. If you've got someone who's job is to be around the team all the time, they'll have the best information and scoops. Now, there's always a little danger in allowing one side to set the narrative, but from a content-generation standpoint it will give you tremendous access. Plus, how many times have you watched a game featuring your team on a big network and finding yourselves miffed about a comment here or there because it shows these announcers don't (and honestly, can't) know intimate details about the teams like us die-hards? Those moments can be minimized with broadcast teams whose sole job is to cover the ACC.

I always find that big discussions about ESPN's declining viewership to miss the boat in various places, but another point to consider is the way we consume information about sports is so fragmented now. I'll use myself as an example.

I'm a Virginia Tech grad, so I get my Hokie fix from a couple different sources, namely the Roanoke Times beat writer and a high-quality fan site that does film breakdowns & provides great recruiting news updates. As someone who lives in Northern Virginia, my pro sports fandom is centered around DC United (MLS), the Caps (NHL), Wizards (NBA) and Nats (MLB). I follow team-specific blogs from SBNation, plus beat writers from the Washington Post or MASN to get the best and inside information about each team.

ESPN can't come close to covering the teams I'm interested better than any of those outlets. General sports talk doesn't really interest me that much any more because my rooting interests lie with only a handful of teams. I imagine that many of us here have similar ways of following our teams. Being a sports network that covers everything (like ESPN) inevitably means that my interests receive little attention, which only feeds the divisive narratives like "ESPN DOESN'T TALK ABOUT SO-AND-SO ENOUGH."

It sucks that high-quality reporters & news-breakers lost their jobs, but from an ACC Network point-of-view, they don't add much when you look at the cost-benefit ratio. We're all going to be concerned with our teams, and as much as Brett McMurphy seems like a nice dude, it's not like he's a Paul Finebaum type that has cache with a specific fanbase.

If anything, most observers miss the point with the ESPN-ACC relationship (same with the SECN). The SECN and ACCN are basically ESPN turning these conference's inventories into larger-scale RSNs. RSNs have made big money at the same time people are fleeing cable. ESPN is capitalizing on that and making sure they have a stake in these rabid fanbases for years to come. We'll see in a few years how things turn out, but I'm of the opinion that the ACCN will be a big success for ESPN.

(05-15-2017 10:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 10:02 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 09:55 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 08:21 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

"above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

If this is where we stand then it isn't a 'great read'. Now I love the 'approaching Big 10.'

I don't get why ANYBODY would sign a 20 year contract when the possibility is "above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network."

You simply don't sign long term contracts with this type of situation. The ACC is HORID when it comes to contract negotiations. Signed 20 years away based on guesses, hopes, speculations, and from a position of weakness.

Conference networks are far more about basketball than football because there's far more content to broadcast. Basketball is where the ACC shines. If you did the same sort of chart for basketball the ACC would be in a more dominate position than the SEC is in football. Think about it. Why is the B1G network making about as much money as the SEC network even though SEC football is far more popular than B1G football? It's because B1G basketball is far more popular than SEC basketball. And there's population. The ACC footprint includes the most population of any conference. More households equals more prospective customers for a conference network.

IF it is about basketball (not disputing, just addressing that logic), then I would be concerned given ESPN just fired all of it's CBB media.

Given the cable subscription model is going away, the population of the conference is no longer the asset it was. The ACC was WELL positioned with the old ESPN model. Now that we are moving to digital stream model (most likely) it is about fan bases.

What I think we will see in the future is ESPN focusing more on pro sports & leaving the college reporting to the conference networks. The schools will be providing the announcers, production, etc. You will still see the national shows on ESPNU & such but the conference networks will be far more involved & that will reduce their need for their own media & talking heads.

These are my thoughts regarding the ESPN layoffs.

Yeah, I don't think it's by accident that ESPN is continuing with conference networks for specialized programming.

When and if they day comes that they have to sell direct to the consumer, they will be well positioned selling the SEC Network in those states, the ACC Network in those states, etc than they would be trying to sell say, ESPNU everywhere. If they're passing on much of the cost of production to the schools, why the hell not?

(05-15-2017 10:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 07:30 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Very Good Must Read!
From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

Thanks cuseroc.
If we had known in 2010 that we could be neck and neck with the B1G in income within 10 years and ahead of the PAC and the Big 12 is surely would have saved a lot of angst.

To be nitpicky, this article isn't saying the ACC will be neck and neck with the Big 10 in revenue, only that it could be similar in conference network revenue.

That's a positive, especially given how successful the BTN is considered to be, but the B1G's first-tier media deals will far outpace the ACC. As of course do their bowl deals, etc.