(07-16-2022 11:56 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  If let's say the full distribution of Comcast/Xfinity if only a conservative 10M new subscribers with the additions that is still 52M subscriptions at the average rate of 0.72 per month per subscriber that is a lot of money. That's $450M for the year, divided by 2 gets to just about $15M for each member. Now I assume let's say there are costs to run the network as well so even with said costs being as high as $3M per school, we might be looking at a net of $12M per school. Is my math off?

So what is the conference making on just the TV contract not including the ACCN monies?

Just how bad is our ABC/ESPN TV contract?

Cheers,
Neil

I tend to disagree, How much did the ACC pay for all of the startup of the network?
I think the Schools had to cover on site broadcast facilities (at 10M), but ESPN covered everything else. The ACC had bring some money to the table for start-up, or work out a deal. With the look-ins in 2026 & 2030 we are all asuming ESPN say eat a BIG NO, however we see ESPN working with the PAC & ACC as we speak, while we do not know the final outcome yet, its not true that ESPN does not value the ACC or its partnership.

(07-16-2022 12:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:09 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 09:04 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 07:40 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Well Yes we should follow ESPNs lead. ESPN is the one giving the ACC these "in foot print" subscriber rates for new West Coast content! What I do not know:

Are the rates:
Out of footprint .10 or .20? Is In front print 1.40 or 1.50? What would the advertisement income monies be?

In footprint is only $1.00; out of footprint is $0.50
Not sure what happens to all that Spurtle advertising money.

Here is what I found.... It appears to be the National avg as of Oct 2020: so we can use that on the 42M to finds out the ACC Subscriber income before Advertisement & any increase from new deals:

Monthly Affiliate Revenue per Average Subscriber:
ESPN - $7.64
NFLN - $1.79
FS1- $1.12
ESPN2: $1.02
SECN: $0.93
ACCN: $0.67
BTN: $0.59

Link

https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost...234810682/

According to this, ACCN up to $0.72:



That also implies the ACCN is already bringing in more revenue than the BTN (at least until the BTN gets into California better). That's a pretty big success for a network pretty much fresh out of the gate.

Take that BIG, and for all those who thought the ACCN would not get very good coverage. The thing that irks me so much is that that the BIG is still bringing in more money from their network, because their network is owned by them, and the ACC has to share the revenue with ESPN. So does the SEC, for that matter.

Fox owns 61% of the BTN.

(07-16-2022 11:09 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 09:04 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 07:40 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 09:46 PM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t see Oregon and Washington moving the needle out here.

We just need to follow ESPN’s lead on this and throw them on the network.

Well Yes we should follow ESPNs lead. ESPN is the one giving the ACC these "in foot print" subscriber rates for new West Coast content! What I do not know:

Are the rates:
Out of footprint .10 or .20? Is In front print 1.40 or 1.50? What would the advertisement income monies be?

In footprint is only $1.00; out of footprint is $0.50
Not sure what happens to all that Spurtle advertising money.

Here is what I found.... It appears to be the National avg as of Oct 2020: so we can use that on the 42M to finds out the ACC Subscriber income before Advertisement & any increase from new deals:

Monthly Affiliate Revenue per Average Subscriber:
ESPN - $7.64
NFLN - $1.79
FS1- $1.12
ESPN2: $1.02
SECN: $0.93
ACCN: $0.67
BTN: $0.59

Link

https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost...234810682/

According to this, ACCN up to $0.72:



That also implies the ACCN is already bringing in more revenue than the BTN (at least until the BTN gets into California better). That's a pretty big success for a network pretty much fresh out of the gate.

Awesome....

So 42M mutliply by $0.72= 30.24M by 12Months=362.88M 50/50 with ESPN so the ACC Share is 181.44M split by 15 ACC Schools=12M per school. We are know in the ball park. (So much for the ACC Network not being profitable)

So lets say Hokie Mark is correct that the ACCN- In footprint is only $1.00; out of footprint is $0.50.... (not sure that is true anymore is teh national avg is $0.72)

So the ACCN deal with Pac12 will help becuase we get to take the numbers YNot provided:

California 13M households
Washinton 2.8M
Arizona 2.5M
Colorado 2.1M
Oregon 1.6M
Utah 1.0M
Total PAC12 Households: 23M

We can add $0.50 to 23M for "in-foot print rates" for a monthly increase of 11.5M and then we muliply by 12 months for a grand total increase of: 138M Of course we split 50/50 with ESPN so we see a profit of 69M and a per school pay out of 4.6M before we talk any advertising splits. I also think this number is low as it does not count the millions of people who are streaming and there rates, this is just cable & satellite rates, I also think the entire states coud go "in foot-print". These numbers are based on Hokie Marks "In footprint is only $1.00; out of footprint is $0.50." I was told something different, and his numbers are lower than mine so I went with his until I can get confirmation.

Pretty good deal IMHO, and that before we talk increase content $$

(07-16-2022 12:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:56 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  If let's say the full distribution of Comcast/Xfinity if only a conservative 10M new subscribers with the additions that is still 52M subscriptions at the average rate of 0.72 per month per subscriber that is a lot of money. That's $450M for the year, divided by 2 gets to just about $15M for each member. Now I assume let's say there are costs to run the network as well so even with said costs being as high as $3M per school, we might be looking at a net of $12M per school. Is my math off?

So what is the conference making on just the TV contract not including the ACCN monies?

Just how bad is our ABC/ESPN TV contract?

Cheers,
Neil

I tend to disagree, How much did the ACC pay for all of the startup of the network?
I think the Schools had to cover on site broadcast facilities (at 10M), but ESPN covered everything else. The ACC had bring some money to the table for start-up, or work out a deal. With the look-ins in 2026 & 2030 we are all asuming ESPN say eat a BIG NO, however we see ESPN working with the PAC & ACC as we speak, while we do not know the final outcome yet, its not true that ESPN does not value the ACC or its partnership.

Whatever was paid for the start-up I assume was either a reason why the annual income from the ACCN in the beginning was so small or the institutions forked out the $$$ on their dime in the hopes of recouping that money invested once the Network was fully distributed or some combo of the two.

My scenario was dealing more with annual costs to keep the Network functioning once it was up and running since things breakdown, announcers need to get paid, talk shows with hosts have to paid, etc. I may have overstated how much per school by saying $3M, but I intended to over exaggerate for a reason and that is because of the following:

The Navigate Research Project done in March of 2022 just a few months ago has the ACC distributing to each of its 14 football members a total of $31M each for 2022-23 (which supposedly includes Tier 1, 2, and 3 TV rights - in other words it includes BOTH the games shown on regular TV plus the the ACCN).

This seems to indicate that the TV rights are $19M per school in what essentially is a third of the way through the TV contract with a built in escalator clause for small incremental increases each and every year.

That seems OFF to me, but it may actually be correct (or near correct).

This despite the fact that the ACC has more games with 1M viewers plus from 2013 through 2018 (still compiling 2019-2021) than either the PAC (with USC and UCLA) or the B12 (with Texas and OU). On the last "look-in" (if there was even one) ESPN had to know this was a fact.

I realize that the PAC is handicapped in any type of comparison like this but the B12 not so much since they had ESPN, FOX, ABC, ESPN2, and FS1 available as outlets for their content to be shown whereas the ACC didn't have FOX or FS1.

Taking only into consideration the games that received 1M or more viewers:

ACC - 200 games with an average of 3.10M per game
B12 - 164 games with an average of 2.66M per game

About the only significant difference between the two was that the ACC had a championship game for all 6 of those years, while the B12 only had the championship game in 2 of those years. But still that would only add 4 more games to the total but I suppose could increase their overall average up to approximately to 2.75M.

Once the 2019, 2020, and 2021 years are evaluated it will be interesting to see if the B12 closed the gap but since 2020 had ND as a conference member that year I doubt it. But that year was bonkers anyways.

The cautionary tale for both the ACC and the B12 is in the following analysis:

The B12 had 46 games that earned 3M or more viewers and were either a conference game or a home or neutral site game OOC.

Of those 46 games:

31 of those 46 involved OU or Texas or both. That is 67% of the B12's games with 3M or more viewers.

2 more involved a B12 program not named Texas or OU facing one of the Top 2 programs in another conference (Ohio State & Michigan from the B1G, Alabama & Georgia from the SEC, FSU and Clemson from the ACC, USC and Oregon from the PAC, or independent Notre Dame).

Total 33 of 46 games with 3M or more viewers which is 71% of the total.

For the ACC it was 71 games that earned 3M or more viewers and were either a conference game or a home or neutral site game OOC.

Of those 71 games

39 of those 71 games involved FSU or Clemson or both. That is 55% of our games with 3M or more viewers.

5 more involved an ACC program not named FSU or Clemson facing one of the Top 2 programs in another conference (Ohio State & Michigan from the B1G, Alabama & Georgia from the SEC, OU & Texas from the B1G12, or USC & Oregon from the PAC).

10 more involved an ACC program not named FSU or Clemson playing against Notre Dame.

Total 54 of 71 games with 3M or more viewers which is 76% of the total number of ACC games.

Losing Notre Dame to the B1G is impactful but not disastrous.

Losing both FSU and Clemson to the SEC would be catastrophic.

And yet we are being told that the B12 losing Texas and Oklahoma which accounts for 67% of that conference's games with 3M or more viewers somehow will get an increase simply by replacing those two schools with BYU, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and Houston?

What am I missing?

Dazed and confused.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-16-2022 03:55 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:56 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  If let's say the full distribution of Comcast/Xfinity if only a conservative 10M new subscribers with the additions that is still 52M subscriptions at the average rate of 0.72 per month per subscriber that is a lot of money. That's $450M for the year, divided by 2 gets to just about $15M for each member. Now I assume let's say there are costs to run the network as well so even with said costs being as high as $3M per school, we might be looking at a net of $12M per school. Is my math off?

So what is the conference making on just the TV contract not including the ACCN monies?

Just how bad is our ABC/ESPN TV contract?

Cheers,
Neil

I tend to disagree, How much did the ACC pay for all of the startup of the network?
I think the Schools had to cover on site broadcast facilities (at 10M), but ESPN covered everything else. The ACC had bring some money to the table for start-up, or work out a deal. With the look-ins in 2026 & 2030 we are all asuming ESPN say eat a BIG NO, however we see ESPN working with the PAC & ACC as we speak, while we do not know the final outcome yet, its not true that ESPN does not value the ACC or its partnership.

Whatever was paid for the start-up I assume was either a reason why the annual income from the ACCN in the beginning was so small or the institutions forked out the $$$ on their dime in the hopes of recouping that money invested once the Network was fully distributed or some combo of the two.

My scenario was dealing more with annual costs to keep the Network functioning once it was up and running since things breakdown, announcers need to get paid, talk shows with hosts have to paid, etc. I may have overstated how much per school by saying $3M, but I intended to over exaggerate for a reason and that is because of the following:

The Navigate Research Project done in March of 2022 just a few months ago has the ACC distributing to each of its 14 football members a total of $31M each for 2022-23 (which supposedly includes Tier 1, 2, and 3 TV rights - in other words it includes BOTH the games shown on regular TV plus the the ACCN).

This seems to indicate that the TV rights are $19M per school in what essentially is a third of the way through the TV contract with a built in escalator clause for small incremental increases each and every year.

That seems OFF to me, but it may actually be correct (or near correct).

This despite the fact that the ACC has more games with 1M viewers plus from 2013 through 2018 (still compiling 2019-2021) than either the PAC (with USC and UCLA) or the B12 (with Texas and OU). On the last "look-in" (if there was even one) ESPN had to know this was a fact.

I realize that the PAC is handicapped in any type of comparison like this but the B12 not so much since they had ESPN, FOX, ABC, ESPN2, and FS1 available as outlets for their content to be shown whereas the ACC didn't have FOX or FS1.

Taking only into consideration the games that received 1M or more viewers:

ACC - 200 games with an average of 3.10M per game
B12 - 164 games with an average of 2.66M per game

About the only significant difference between the two was that the ACC had a championship game for all 6 of those years, while the B12 only had the championship game in 2 of those years. But still that would only add 4 more games to the total but I suppose could increase their overall average up to approximately to 2.75M.

Once the 2019, 2020, and 2021 years are evaluated it will be interesting to see if the B12 closed the gap but since 2020 had ND as a conference member that year I doubt it. But that year was bonkers anyways.

The cautionary tale for both the ACC and the B12 is in the following analysis:

The B12 had 46 games that earned 3M or more viewers and were either a conference game or a home or neutral site game OOC.

Of those 46 games:

31 of those 46 involved OU or Texas or both. That is 67% of the B12's games with 3M or more viewers.

2 more involved a B12 program not named Texas or OU facing one of the Top 2 programs in another conference (Ohio State & Michigan from the B1G, Alabama & Georgia from the SEC, FSU and Clemson from the ACC, USC and Oregon from the PAC, or independent Notre Dame).

Total 33 of 46 games with 3M or more viewers which is 71% of the total.

For the ACC it was 71 games that earned 3M or more viewers and were either a conference game or a home or neutral site game OOC.

Of those 71 games

39 of those 71 games involved FSU or Clemson or both. That is 55% of our games with 3M or more viewers.

5 more involved an ACC program not named FSU or Clemson facing one of the Top 2 programs in another conference (Ohio State & Michigan from the B1G, Alabama & Georgia from the SEC, OU & Texas from the B1G12, or USC & Oregon from the PAC).

10 more involved an ACC program not named FSU or Clemson playing against Notre Dame.

Total 54 of 71 games with 3M or more viewers which is 76% of the total number of ACC games.

Losing Notre Dame to the B1G is impactful but not disastrous.

Losing both FSU and Clemson to the SEC would be catastrophic.

And yet we are being told that the B12 losing Texas and Oklahoma which accounts for 67% of that conference's games with 3M or more viewers somehow will get an increase simply by replacing those two schools with BYU, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and Houston?

What am I missing?

Dazed and confused.

Cheers,
Neil

Rumors, why waste your time with these? If this happens it will be after 2036!

As more information comes out, I become more confident that the ACC will get to payouts of at least $60 to $65 million per school per year. Beyond that it's hard to see unless expanded playoffs pays for it.

(07-16-2022 03:55 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:56 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  If let's say the full distribution of Comcast/Xfinity if only a conservative 10M new subscribers with the additions that is still 52M subscriptions at the average rate of 0.72 per month per subscriber that is a lot of money. That's $450M for the year, divided by 2 gets to just about $15M for each member. Now I assume let's say there are costs to run the network as well so even with said costs being as high as $3M per school, we might be looking at a net of $12M per school. Is my math off?

So what is the conference making on just the TV contract not including the ACCN monies?

Just how bad is our ABC/ESPN TV contract?

Cheers,
Neil

I tend to disagree, How much did the ACC pay for all of the startup of the network?
I think the Schools had to cover on site broadcast facilities (at 10M), but ESPN covered everything else. The ACC had bring some money to the table for start-up, or work out a deal. With the look-ins in 2026 & 2030 we are all asuming ESPN say eat a BIG NO, however we see ESPN working with the PAC & ACC as we speak, while we do not know the final outcome yet, its not true that ESPN does not value the ACC or its partnership.

Whatever was paid for the start-up I assume was either a reason why the annual income from the ACCN in the beginning was so small or the institutions forked out the $$$ on their dime in the hopes of recouping that money invested once the Network was fully distributed or some combo of the two.

My scenario was dealing more with annual costs to keep the Network functioning once it was up and running since things breakdown, announcers need to get paid, talk shows with hosts have to paid, etc. I may have overstated how much per school by saying $3M, but I intended to over exaggerate for a reason and that is because of the following:

The Navigate Research Project done in March of 2022 just a few months ago has the ACC distributing to each of its 14 football members a total of $31M each for 2022-23 (which supposedly includes Tier 1, 2, and 3 TV rights - in other words it includes BOTH the games shown on regular TV plus the the ACCN).

This seems to indicate that the TV rights are $19M per school in what essentially is a third of the way through the TV contract with a built in escalator clause for small incremental increases each and every year.

That seems OFF to me, but it may actually be correct (or near correct).

This despite the fact that the ACC has more games with 1M viewers plus from 2013 through 2018 (still compiling 2019-2021) than either the PAC (with USC and UCLA) or the B12 (with Texas and OU). On the last "look-in" (if there was even one) ESPN had to know this was a fact.

I realize that the PAC is handicapped in any type of comparison like this but the B12 not so much since they had ESPN, FOX, ABC, ESPN2, and FS1 available as outlets for their content to be shown whereas the ACC didn't have FOX or FS1.

Taking only into consideration the games that received 1M or more viewers:

ACC - 200 games with an average of 3.10M per game
B12 - 164 games with an average of 2.66M per game

About the only significant difference between the two was that the ACC had a championship game for all 6 of those years, while the B12 only had the championship game in 2 of those years. But still that would only add 4 more games to the total but I suppose could increase their overall average up to approximately to 2.75M.

Once the 2019, 2020, and 2021 years are evaluated it will be interesting to see if the B12 closed the gap but since 2020 had ND as a conference member that year I doubt it. But that year was bonkers anyways.

The cautionary tale for both the ACC and the B12 is in the following analysis:

The B12 had 46 games that earned 3M or more viewers and were either a conference game or a home or neutral site game OOC.

Of those 46 games:

31 of those 46 involved OU or Texas or both. That is 67% of the B12's games with 3M or more viewers.

2 more involved a B12 program not named Texas or OU facing one of the Top 2 programs in another conference (Ohio State & Michigan from the B1G, Alabama & Georgia from the SEC, FSU and Clemson from the ACC, USC and Oregon from the PAC, or independent Notre Dame).

Total 33 of 46 games with 3M or more viewers which is 71% of the total.

For the ACC it was 71 games that earned 3M or more viewers and were either a conference game or a home or neutral site game OOC.

Of those 71 games

39 of those 71 games involved FSU or Clemson or both. That is 55% of our games with 3M or more viewers.

5 more involved an ACC program not named FSU or Clemson facing one of the Top 2 programs in another conference (Ohio State & Michigan from the B1G, Alabama & Georgia from the SEC, OU & Texas from the B1G12, or USC & Oregon from the PAC).

10 more involved an ACC program not named FSU or Clemson playing against Notre Dame.

Total 54 of 71 games with 3M or more viewers which is 76% of the total number of ACC games.

Losing Notre Dame to the B1G is impactful but not disastrous.

Losing both FSU and Clemson to the SEC would be catastrophic.

And yet we are being told that the B12 losing Texas and Oklahoma which accounts for 67% of that conference's games with 3M or more viewers somehow will get an increase simply by replacing those two schools with BYU, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and Houston?

What am I missing?

Dazed and confused.

Cheers,
Neil

Excellent analysis Niel. Good to have you back.

(07-16-2022 12:07 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:09 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 09:04 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-15-2022 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In footprint is only $1.00; out of footprint is $0.50
Not sure what happens to all that Spurtle advertising money.

Here is what I found.... It appears to be the National avg as of Oct 2020: so we can use that on the 42M to finds out the ACC Subscriber income before Advertisement & any increase from new deals:

Monthly Affiliate Revenue per Average Subscriber:
ESPN - $7.64
NFLN - $1.79
FS1- $1.12
ESPN2: $1.02
SECN: $0.93
ACCN: $0.67
BTN: $0.59

Link

https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost...234810682/

According to this, ACCN up to $0.72:



That also implies the ACCN is already bringing in more revenue than the BTN (at least until the BTN gets into California better). That's a pretty big success for a network pretty much fresh out of the gate.

Take that BIG, and for all those who thought the ACCN would not get very good coverage. The thing that irks me so much is that that the BIG is still bringing in more money from their network, because their network is owned by them, and the ACC has to share the revenue with ESPN. So does the SEC, for that matter.

Fox owns 61% of the BTN.

They own less of their network than the ACC owns of the ACCN. Didnt know that. It makes feel better lol.

(07-17-2022 07:28 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:07 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:09 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 09:04 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Here is what I found.... It appears to be the National avg as of Oct 2020: so we can use that on the 42M to finds out the ACC Subscriber income before Advertisement & any increase from new deals:

Monthly Affiliate Revenue per Average Subscriber:
ESPN - $7.64
NFLN - $1.79
FS1- $1.12
ESPN2: $1.02
SECN: $0.93
ACCN: $0.67
BTN: $0.59

Link

https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost...234810682/

According to this, ACCN up to $0.72:



That also implies the ACCN is already bringing in more revenue than the BTN (at least until the BTN gets into California better). That's a pretty big success for a network pretty much fresh out of the gate.

Take that BIG, and for all those who thought the ACCN would not get very good coverage. The thing that irks me so much is that that the BIG is still bringing in more money from their network, because their network is owned by them, and the ACC has to share the revenue with ESPN. So does the SEC, for that matter.

Fox owns 61% of the BTN.

They own less of their network than the ACC owns of the ACCN. Didnt know that. It makes feel better lol.

ACC owns 0% of the ACCN. SEC owns 0% of the SECN. Pac-12 owns 100% of the Pac-12 Network.

(07-17-2022 08:47 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 07:28 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:07 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:09 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  According to this, ACCN up to $0.72:



That also implies the ACCN is already bringing in more revenue than the BTN (at least until the BTN gets into California better). That's a pretty big success for a network pretty much fresh out of the gate.

Take that BIG, and for all those who thought the ACCN would not get very good coverage. The thing that irks me so much is that that the BIG is still bringing in more money from their network, because their network is owned by them, and the ACC has to share the revenue with ESPN. So does the SEC, for that matter.

Fox owns 61% of the BTN.

They own less of their network than the ACC owns of the ACCN. Didnt know that. It makes feel better lol.

ACC owns 0% of the ACCN. SEC owns 0% of the SECN. Pac-12 owns 100% of the Pac-12 Network.

So the lesson is that owning your OWN network is not the way to guarantee money in regards to college conf networks!

The numbers are all out there... subscribers and rates.

http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2022/07/1...h-to-espn/

I haven't seen anyone yet explain why it's in ESPN best interest to work with the SEC to expand with 2 ACC teams why at the same blowing up a network that they spent 3 years setting up distribution with a profit for them north of $100 Million and going up.

This isn't the Long Horn Network.

FOX is a wildcard, and I'm not saying Media rights TV Deal isn't trash.

What I'm saying is if ESPN is pulling the strings on SEC expansion it makes no sense to push it right now.

THe Pac 12 deal is reduced. The Big 12 deal is reduced, and ESPN will have extra cash.

(07-17-2022 08:47 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 07:28 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:07 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:09 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  According to this, ACCN up to $0.72:



That also implies the ACCN is already bringing in more revenue than the BTN (at least until the BTN gets into California better). That's a pretty big success for a network pretty much fresh out of the gate.

Take that BIG, and for all those who thought the ACCN would not get very good coverage. The thing that irks me so much is that that the BIG is still bringing in more money from their network, because their network is owned by them, and the ACC has to share the revenue with ESPN. So does the SEC, for that matter.

Fox owns 61% of the BTN.

They own less of their network than the ACC owns of the ACCN. Didnt know that. It makes feel better lol.

ACC owns 0% of the ACCN. SEC owns 0% of the SECN. Pac-12 owns 100% of the Pac-12 Network.

I guess Im confused then. Why did each ACC school have to invest millions and millions and millions of dollars in studios aand other equipment if there is no ownership?

(07-17-2022 07:19 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 08:47 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 07:28 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:07 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:05 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Take that BIG, and for all those who thought the ACCN would not get very good coverage. The thing that irks me so much is that that the BIG is still bringing in more money from their network, because their network is owned by them, and the ACC has to share the revenue with ESPN. So does the SEC, for that matter.

Fox owns 61% of the BTN.

They own less of their network than the ACC owns of the ACCN. Didnt know that. It makes feel better lol.

ACC owns 0% of the ACCN. SEC owns 0% of the SECN. Pac-12 owns 100% of the Pac-12 Network.

I guess Im confused then. Why did each ACC school have to invest millions and millions and millions of dollars in studios aand other equipment if there is no ownership?

It's rights to the content the SEC and ACC don't own anymore. The SEC and ACC can't take their TV rights and move them to a 3rd party. Some of the Regional TV content for the ACC seems to have been grandfathered through ~2027 which is one slight differences with the SEC.

The consensus seems that the profits which are sizeable are nearly 50/50 between ESPN and the conference.

(07-14-2022 04:01 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 01:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  The pickings are slim as far as brands go.

If you assume that we have all of Notre Dame we are gong to get, there aren't really any "A" level football powers left.
Oregon, maybe....not really a dynasty. Washington used to be.
A bunch of "B's"
TCU, but without Patterson ? Oklahoma State (Gundy is getting old), West Virginia (never got back to the B level Rich Rod teams), Cincinnati has been consistent under the last three coaches, but not what you could call flashy.
You're not getting a SEC or a B1G team ($$).
The real question is will ESPN pay the league more if we expand? If that answer is yes, for what ever reason the works for ESPN, then we need to move forward with whichever teams they suggest. Any additional income from the network or expanded fan base is gravy.
T

I think it's all going to boil down to what ESPN wants to retain and/or keep off of FOX. It's no longer "who does the ACC want." The ACC wants one thing....money.

ESPN can easily dump the best of the XII (a conference they don't want) into the ACC and merge the rest into the PAC ( a conference they can build and takeover the PACN).

The XII is dead, IMO.

XII to ACC
Kansas
WVU
Cincy
Baylor
Okie State
TCU

XII to PAC
Tex Tech


PAC picks up
San Diego State


From ESPN's perspective, they retain the better remnants of the XII and get the ACCN in Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, WVa and Texas. By virtue of putting Texas Tech in the PAC, they also get the PACN (that I believe they will acquire) into Texas.

San Diego State keeps the PAC in So Cal.


ESPN would then own 3 of the P4.

If your moving teams from the Big12 to the ACC wouldn’t it be better suited to get Houston as well??? I mean they have a top5 TV market and yes I understand streaming services have taken off, but that’s still a huge market to gain. I would bring in from Texas to the ACC 3 teams being Baylor, Houston, TCU.

I would then add West Virginia, Cincinnati and UCF. Yes I just said I would add UCF who becoming one of the largest enrollment schools in the country if not the largest. Also this gives the conference 6 destinations between the two states to help scheduling.

I would also look to bring in Oklahoma State and Iowa State. This move brings us to 22 schools with both Kansas and KSU there for the picking which would move the conference to a 24 team Super Conference.

Now I would look at thinning the herd with ESPN to move the needle from 24 back to 20. I would let go Kansas State, Wake Forest, Syracuse and Boston College. This lineup would be a good one IMO that should be worthy of P3 status.

Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State, UNC, Duke, Kansas, Iowa State, Cincinnati, UCF, Virginia, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, TCU, Georgia Tech, NC State

Your telling me that lineup ESPN wouldn’t want to pay to have the rights to??? Yes some schools are going to be left behind, but Football who pays the bills is calling the shots along with media mostly being ESPN and FOX.

(07-17-2022 03:04 PM)GTTiger Wrote:  The numbers are all out there... subscribers and rates.

http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2022/07/1...h-to-espn/

I haven't seen anyone yet explain why it's in ESPN best interest to work with the SEC to expand with 2 ACC teams why at the same blowing up a network that they spent 3 years setting up distribution with a profit for them north of $100 Million and going up.

This isn't the Long Horn Network.

FOX is a wildcard, and I'm not saying Media rights TV Deal isn't trash.

What I'm saying is if ESPN is pulling the strings on SEC expansion it makes no sense to push it right now.

THe Pac 12 deal is reduced. The Big 12 deal is reduced, and ESPN will have extra cash.

Great Points!

(07-19-2022 05:29 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 04:01 PM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  

(07-14-2022 01:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  The pickings are slim as far as brands go.

If you assume that we have all of Notre Dame we are gong to get, there aren't really any "A" level football powers left.
Oregon, maybe....not really a dynasty. Washington used to be.
A bunch of "B's"
TCU, but without Patterson ? Oklahoma State (Gundy is getting old), West Virginia (never got back to the B level Rich Rod teams), Cincinnati has been consistent under the last three coaches, but not what you could call flashy.
You're not getting a SEC or a B1G team ($$).
The real question is will ESPN pay the league more if we expand? If that answer is yes, for what ever reason the works for ESPN, then we need to move forward with whichever teams they suggest. Any additional income from the network or expanded fan base is gravy.
T

I think it's all going to boil down to what ESPN wants to retain and/or keep off of FOX. It's no longer "who does the ACC want." The ACC wants one thing....money.

ESPN can easily dump the best of the XII (a conference they don't want) into the ACC and merge the rest into the PAC ( a conference they can build and takeover the PACN).

The XII is dead, IMO.

XII to ACC
Kansas
WVU
Cincy
Baylor
Okie State
TCU

XII to PAC
Tex Tech


PAC picks up
San Diego State


From ESPN's perspective, they retain the better remnants of the XII and get the ACCN in Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, WVa and Texas. By virtue of putting Texas Tech in the PAC, they also get the PACN (that I believe they will acquire) into Texas.

San Diego State keeps the PAC in So Cal.


ESPN would then own 3 of the P4.

If your moving teams from the Big12 to the ACC wouldn’t it be better suited to get Houston as well??? I mean they have a top5 TV market and yes I understand streaming services have taken off, but that’s still a huge market to gain. I would bring in from Texas to the ACC 3 teams being Baylor, Houston, TCU.

I would then add West Virginia, Cincinnati and UCF. Yes I just said I would add UCF who becoming one of the largest enrollment schools in the country if not the largest. Also this gives the conference 6 destinations between the two states to help scheduling.

I would also look to bring in Oklahoma State and Iowa State. This move brings us to 22 schools with both Kansas and KSU there for the picking which would move the conference to a 24 team Super Conference.

Now I would look at thinning the herd with ESPN to move the needle from 24 back to 20. I would let go Kansas State, Wake Forest, Syracuse and Boston College. This lineup would be a good one IMO that should be worthy of P3 status.

Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State, UNC, Duke, Kansas, Iowa State, Cincinnati, UCF, Virginia, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, TCU, Georgia Tech, NC State

Your telling me that lineup ESPN wouldn’t want to pay to have the rights to??? Yes some schools are going to be left behind, but Football who pays the bills is calling the shots along with media mostly being ESPN and FOX.

I can only speak for my team (FSU) and say that it has no noteworthy history with any of those additions nor does it add any compelling big brand matchups. WVU is the exception to some degree and that's probably being very generous. It's a band-aid on a sinking ship or at least one that has been downgraded significantly. The top brands will still want out as soon as they can leave. Sorry to be a downer but I want out or bust.

(07-16-2022 03:55 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 12:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(07-16-2022 11:56 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  If let's say the full distribution of Comcast/Xfinity if only a conservative 10M new subscribers with the additions that is still 52M subscriptions at the average rate of 0.72 per month per subscriber that is a lot of money. That's $450M for the year, divided by 2 gets to just about $15M for each member. Now I assume let's say there are costs to run the network as well so even with said costs being as high as $3M per school, we might be looking at a net of $12M per school. Is my math off?

So what is the conference making on just the TV contract not including the ACCN monies?

Just how bad is our ABC/ESPN TV contract?

Cheers,
Neil

I tend to disagree, How much did the ACC pay for all of the startup of the network?
I think the Schools had to cover on site broadcast facilities (at 10M), but ESPN covered everything else. The ACC had bring some money to the table for start-up, or work out a deal. With the look-ins in 2026 & 2030 we are all asuming ESPN say eat a BIG NO, however we see ESPN working with the PAC & ACC as we speak, while we do not know the final outcome yet, its not true that ESPN does not value the ACC or its partnership.

Whatever was paid for the start-up I assume was either a reason why the annual income from the ACCN in the beginning was so small or the institutions forked out the $$$ on their dime in the hopes of recouping that money invested once the Network was fully distributed or some combo of the two.

My scenario was dealing more with annual costs to keep the Network functioning once it was up and running since things breakdown, announcers need to get paid, talk shows with hosts have to paid, etc. I may have overstated how much per school by saying $3M, but I intended to over exaggerate for a reason and that is because of the following:

The Navigate Research Project done in March of 2022 just a few months ago has the ACC distributing to each of its 14 football members a total of $31M each for 2022-23 (which supposedly includes Tier 1, 2, and 3 TV rights - in other words it includes BOTH the games shown on regular TV plus the the ACCN).

This seems to indicate that the TV rights are $19M per school in what essentially is a third of the way through the TV contract with a built in escalator clause for small incremental increases each and every year.

That seems OFF to me, but it may actually be correct (or near correct).

This despite the fact that the ACC has more games with 1M viewers plus from 2013 through 2018 (still compiling 2019-2021) than either the PAC (with USC and UCLA) or the B12 (with Texas and OU). On the last "look-in" (if there was even one) ESPN had to know this was a fact.

I realize that the PAC is handicapped in any type of comparison like this but the B12 not so much since they had ESPN, FOX, ABC, ESPN2, and FS1 available as outlets for their content to be shown whereas the ACC didn't have FOX or FS1.

Taking only into consideration the games that received 1M or more viewers:

ACC - 200 games with an average of 3.10M per game
B12 - 164 games with an average of 2.66M per game

About the only significant difference between the two was that the ACC had a championship game for all 6 of those years, while the B12 only had the championship game in 2 of those years. But still that would only add 4 more games to the total but I suppose could increase their overall average up to approximately to 2.75M.

Once the 2019, 2020, and 2021 years are evaluated it will be interesting to see if the B12 closed the gap but since 2020 had ND as a conference member that year I doubt it. But that year was bonkers anyways.

The cautionary tale for both the ACC and the B12 is in the following analysis:

The B12 had 46 games that earned 3M or more viewers and were either a conference game or a home or neutral site game OOC.

Of those 46 games:

31 of those 46 involved OU or Texas or both. That is 67% of the B12's games with 3M or more viewers.

2 more involved a B12 program not named Texas or OU facing one of the Top 2 programs in another conference (Ohio State & Michigan from the B1G, Alabama & Georgia from the SEC, FSU and Clemson from the ACC, USC and Oregon from the PAC, or independent Notre Dame).

Total 33 of 46 games with 3M or more viewers which is 71% of the total.

For the ACC it was 71 games that earned 3M or more viewers and were either a conference game or a home or neutral site game OOC.

Of those 71 games

39 of those 71 games involved FSU or Clemson or both. That is 55% of our games with 3M or more viewers.

5 more involved an ACC program not named FSU or Clemson facing one of the Top 2 programs in another conference (Ohio State & Michigan from the B1G, Alabama & Georgia from the SEC, OU & Texas from the B1G12, or USC & Oregon from the PAC).

10 more involved an ACC program not named FSU or Clemson playing against Notre Dame.

Total 54 of 71 games with 3M or more viewers which is 76% of the total number of ACC games.

Losing Notre Dame to the B1G is impactful but not disastrous.

Losing both FSU and Clemson to the SEC would be catastrophic.

And yet we are being told that the B12 losing Texas and Oklahoma which accounts for 67% of that conference's games with 3M or more viewers somehow will get an increase simply by replacing those two schools with BYU, Cincinnati, Central Florida, and Houston?

What am I missing?

Dazed and confused.

Cheers,
Neil

The ACC may be missing FSU and Clemson one of these days. Followed, perhaps, by UNC and UVA and perhaps some others. ND, with only one foot in the door, is fickle. What percentage of the ACC's value do they represent? Who, of equal or greater value, would replace them?

These are unsettled times, and nobody is secure if everybody isn't secure. For the long term, wouldn't it be wise to consider geography and rivalries rather looking for distant "brands," hoping to dismantle other conferences, and chasing dollars? In the end, it should be about competition on the field and court, not some damned network's bottom line.