Per his remarks that others (Brett McMurphy, Andy Staples) are tweeting out, an ACC Network is not off the table. Not sure if it is tied into the 5 year look ins or not.

(05-16-2012 12:12 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Per his remarks that others (Brett McMurphy, Andy Staples) are tweeting out, an ACC Network is not off the table. Not sure if it is tied into the 5 year look ins or not.

How exactly would this work? Would the ACC buy back the rights for an ACC network? Who would partner?

An ACC network from Boston to Miami would be amazing.

(05-16-2012 12:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  An ACC network from Boston to Miami would be amazing.

I think it'd be amazing in our minds but in reality would it be? I don't want something like the LHN that nobody can see.

If it is an online only option I could live with it though.

I was thinking more like the Big Ten network. Here in Ohio you know you're in Big Ten country. So an ACC network wouldn't help me here unless there was also an online option.

(05-16-2012 12:31 PM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(05-16-2012 12:12 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Per his remarks that others (Brett McMurphy, Andy Staples) are tweeting out, an ACC Network is not off the table. Not sure if it is tied into the 5 year look ins or not.

How exactly would this work? Would the ACC buy back the rights for an ACC network? Who would partner?

Anybody's guess. Consider it a zero sum or sliding scale game with ESPN though. If the ACC buys back some rights for a network, does it decrease the rights fee? And then are you taking the gamble that you'll make up the money elsewhere? There is risk in starting a conference network if it doesn't have a good blueprint or management (ie. the mtn).

I have to believe that if there is an ACC Network, ESPN and Raycom will have some involvement. Even with 5 year look-ins, I can't see ESPN saying "Here's your rights, go partner with one of our competitors (NBC or FOX) and start your own network".

That's the thing matt. Why can't we work w/ ESPN for the Network? I know ESPN isn't anyone's friend on this board or any ACC team board(for that matter).

(05-16-2012 02:17 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  That's the thing matt. Why can't we work w/ ESPN for the Network? I know ESPN isn't anyone's friend on this board or any ACC team board(for that matter).

I don't think its impossible. Guess it goes back to what ESPN wants to manage themselves vs. handing to someone else.

(05-16-2012 02:25 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  

(05-16-2012 02:17 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  That's the thing matt. Why can't we work w/ ESPN for the Network? I know ESPN isn't anyone's friend on this board or any ACC team board(for that matter).

I don't think its impossible. Guess it goes back to what ESPN wants to manage themselves vs. handing to someone else.

That's what I figured.

(05-16-2012 12:31 PM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(05-16-2012 12:12 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Per his remarks that others (Brett McMurphy, Andy Staples) are tweeting out, an ACC Network is not off the table. Not sure if it is tied into the 5 year look ins or not.

How exactly would this work? Would the ACC buy back the rights for an ACC network? Who would partner?

Exactly. The ACC doesn't have any content to make a network and the ACC has apparently already passed on creating a network twice in three years. Those are the only two things known.

If the ACC received a network I'd think it'd go down something like this:
1. Partner with ESPN (obviously?)
2. Decrease in yearly payouts from $17M to $14-15M (in exchange for the rights ESPN already owns)
3. Receive < 50% of ACCN revenue

Thoughts?

I think we can conceive of an ACCN which costs a lot less than that. Suppose the ACC bought back 1 game per team (total of 14 games). The value of those games is already low because we're talking about the LAST choice of home games. Consider how little Duke's least desirable game would cost! A few teams might actually have a valuable 6th or 7th best home game (e.g. FSU) but since the ACC is big on equal sharing, every team would pay 1/14 of the cost of the TOTAL pkg (so Duke actually saves us all some money in this case).

Once you have that, you schedule one live game per week on ACCN (one week gets two games). This requires planning ahead to make sure there is one "tier 3" game every week.

Finally, you re-broadcast games which have already aired on ESPN throughout the week - stuff which would usually be available only on ESPN3.com. You also could re-broadcast coaches shows, previews, reviews, yada yada. Of course Olympic sports, women's sports, etc. would also air on ACCN.

Question: what would people be willing to pay for such a cable channel? What if it were available by internet streaming? Both?

(05-16-2012 07:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think we can conceive of an ACCN which costs a lot less than that. Suppose the ACC bought back 1 game per team (total of 14 games). The value of those games is already low because we're talking about the LAST choice of home games. Consider how little Duke's least desirable game would cost! A few teams might actually have a valuable 6th or 7th best home game (e.g. FSU) but since the ACC is big on equal sharing, every team would pay 1/14 of the cost of the TOTAL pkg (so Duke actually saves us all some money in this case).

Once you have that, you schedule one live game per week on ACCN (one week gets two games). This requires planning ahead to make sure there is one "tier 3" game every week.

Finally, you re-broadcast games which have already aired on ESPN throughout the week - stuff which would usually be available only on ESPN3.com. You also could re-broadcast coaches shows, previews, reviews, yada yada. Of course Olympic sports, women's sports, etc. would also air on ACCN.

Question: what would people be willing to pay for such a cable channel? What if it were available by internet streaming? Both?

As you noted, the ACC would have to drastically change scheduling to have any content on the channel beyond week 5 when the FCS games typically end if it was only 14 games, since we're working under the assumption that worst home game goes to a 24/7 ACC Network. I don't think that's doable, nor do I think its in the best interest of the conference if they wanted to start a network.

I think they would need to take all the existing ESPN3 content on, plus the games that Raycom does over-the-air and on regional cable. With the Raycom stuff, at least there are conference games in the fold and those do have value.

(05-17-2012 06:45 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  

(05-16-2012 07:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think we can conceive of an ACCN which costs a lot less than that. Suppose the ACC bought back 1 game per team (total of 14 games). The value of those games is already low because we're talking about the LAST choice of home games. Consider how little Duke's least desirable game would cost! A few teams might actually have a valuable 6th or 7th best home game (e.g. FSU) but since the ACC is big on equal sharing, every team would pay 1/14 of the cost of the TOTAL pkg (so Duke actually saves us all some money in this case).

Once you have that, you schedule one live game per week on ACCN (one week gets two games). This requires planning ahead to make sure there is one "tier 3" game every week.

Finally, you re-broadcast games which have already aired on ESPN throughout the week - stuff which would usually be available only on ESPN3.com. You also could re-broadcast coaches shows, previews, reviews, yada yada. Of course Olympic sports, women's sports, etc. would also air on ACCN.

Question: what would people be willing to pay for such a cable channel? What if it were available by internet streaming? Both?

As you noted, the ACC would have to drastically change scheduling to have any content on the channel beyond week 5 when the FCS games typically end if it was only 14 games, since we're working under the assumption that worst home game goes to a 24/7 ACC Network. I don't think that's doable, nor do I think its in the best interest of the conference if they wanted to start a network.

I think they would need to take all the existing ESPN3 content on, plus the games that Raycom does over-the-air and on regional cable. With the Raycom stuff, at least there are conference games in the fold and those do have value.

I think you sum up the reason for the BigTen Network's success. They own the 2nd and 3rd tier rights as opposed to just the third tier rights, They get the bulk of the broadcast rights, ESPN gets the choice games only. With football and basketball seasons fairly well represented on the network, filling in the space is not difficult with re-broadcasts in off hours, coaches shows, news and analysis. They still have the remaining sports and university productions (plays, orchestras, select lectures) to use as filler, too.

Big Ten baseball, hockey and now lacrosse offer live action sports that draw interest. Who knows, people may be interested in the other Olympic sports, too.

(05-16-2012 06:54 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  Exactly. The ACC doesn't have any content to make a network and the ACC has apparently already passed on creating a network twice in three years. Those are the only two things known.

If the ACC received a network I'd think it'd go down something like this:
1. Partner with ESPN (obviously?)
2. Decrease in yearly payouts from $17M to $14-15M (in exchange for the rights ESPN already owns)
3. Receive < 50% of ACCN revenue

Thoughts?

Most likely, However, the B10 has both T2 and T3 rights dedicated to the Big Ten Network, so that's a big difference.