Bruce Feldman
@BruceFeldmanCFB
The ACC Network will launch on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2019. Just one week later, on August 29, the first conference football game will kick off on the new all-ACC platform when #GeorgiaTech visits #Clemson for a Thursday night contest.
1:00 PM · Nov 30, 2018 · Twitter Web Client

(11-30-2018 11:00 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Bruce Feldman
@BruceFeldmanCFB
The ACC Network will launch on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2019. Just one week later, on August 29, the first conference football game will kick off on the new all-ACC platform when #GeorgiaTech visits #Clemson for a Thursday night contest.
1:00 PM · Nov 30, 2018 · Twitter Web Client

Okay. So.....

(11-30-2018 11:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 11:00 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Bruce Feldman
@BruceFeldmanCFB
The ACC Network will launch on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2019. Just one week later, on August 29, the first conference football game will kick off on the new all-ACC platform when #GeorgiaTech visits #Clemson for a Thursday night contest.
1:00 PM · Nov 30, 2018 · Twitter Web Client

Okay. So.....

So in 2019 GT gets to showcase a brand new coach on a brand new channel?

So Clemson starts its march toward Clemson-Alabama 5?

So the ACC expands before the network launches?

(12-01-2018 12:45 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 11:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 11:00 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Bruce Feldman
@BruceFeldmanCFB
The ACC Network will launch on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2019. Just one week later, on August 29, the first conference football game will kick off on the new all-ACC platform when #GeorgiaTech visits #Clemson for a Thursday night contest.
1:00 PM · Nov 30, 2018 · Twitter Web Client

Okay. So.....

So in 2019 GT gets to showcase a brand new coach on a brand new channel?

So Clemson starts its march toward Clemson-Alabama 5?

So the ACC expands before the network launches?

1. So... a slaughter is not how any coach wishes to get started.

2 What else is new?

3. No.

(11-30-2018 11:00 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Bruce Feldman
@BruceFeldmanCFB
The ACC Network will launch on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2019. Just one week later, on August 29, the first conference football game will kick off on the new all-ACC platform when #GeorgiaTech visits #Clemson for a Thursday night contest.
1:00 PM · Nov 30, 2018 · Twitter Web Client

This feels like a segmentation of properties that they already own so that they can soon sell a college sports app that includes the SECN, ACCN, and I bet they package everything else under a fancy name. They will sell it as a buy one, get two free depending on which state the ad runs in, but it ultimately has been and will be the same properties. Feels like marketing to me, and I think they will do a masterful job of putting SEC/ACC matchups on the ACCN so that currently SECN subscribers have to pony up for the ACCN, as well, thus making the bundle seem more appealing.

(12-02-2018 09:46 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 11:00 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Bruce Feldman
@BruceFeldmanCFB
The ACC Network will launch on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2019. Just one week later, on August 29, the first conference football game will kick off on the new all-ACC platform when #GeorgiaTech visits #Clemson for a Thursday night contest.
1:00 PM · Nov 30, 2018 · Twitter Web Client

This feels like a segmentation of properties that they already own so that they can soon sell a college sports app that includes the SECN, ACCN, and I bet they package everything else under a fancy name. They will sell it as a buy one, get two free depending on which state the ad runs in, but it ultimately has been and will be the same properties. Feels like marketing to me, and I think they will do a masterful job of putting SEC/ACC matchups on the ACCN so that currently SECN subscribers have to pony up for the ACCN, as well, thus making the bundle seem more appealing.

Probably. COFH was on the SECN year one - next year it's in Atlanta, so what do you think are the odds it'll be on the ACCN? It could go back and forth indefinitely...

Looks like ESPN got more coverage for the ACC Network from Verizon!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...nd=premium

(12-30-2018 02:03 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Looks like ESPN got more coverage for the ACC Network from Verizon!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...nd=premium

Below the surface on deals like this is a certain economic reality.

When ESPN loses subscribers, what that means is that customers have cut their entire cable or satellite package out of their budget. On occasion, they might have gone with a skinny bundle that didn't include sports networks, but for the most part it means companies like Verizon or Comcast or whoever have also lost a customer because their prices are too high for the product that's being delivered.

People sneer at ESPN as if they're losing market share, but what's really happening is customers that didn't watch sports anyway are simply using their dollars differently.

What that also means for companies like Verizon and Comcast is that channels like ESPN are basically the only thing keeping them afloat. So in the end, the cable companies will agree to the rate hikes for ESPN because they need ESPN more than ESPN needs the traditional cable companies.

If it weren't for the consumer experience that comes with live sports then a lot of these cable companies would lose tens of millions of subscribers overnight and they'd have no path to make up the revenue. The cable model needs live sports to survive. The difference is ESPN can survive without traditional cable even though it's obvious they'd rather the cable companies stay afloat and wealthy.

If I was running a traditional cable company, I'd try to figure out a way to cut channels that run the consumer's bill up without sacrificing anything that offers the live sports experience. Cable is still a good product, but it's too expensive for people that have no interest in sports. There are too many competitors now for other forms of entertainment.

(12-03-2018 05:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:46 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 11:00 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Bruce Feldman
@BruceFeldmanCFB
The ACC Network will launch on Thursday, Aug. 22, 2019. Just one week later, on August 29, the first conference football game will kick off on the new all-ACC platform when #GeorgiaTech visits #Clemson for a Thursday night contest.
1:00 PM · Nov 30, 2018 · Twitter Web Client

This feels like a segmentation of properties that they already own so that they can soon sell a college sports app that includes the SECN, ACCN, and I bet they package everything else under a fancy name. They will sell it as a buy one, get two free depending on which state the ad runs in, but it ultimately has been and will be the same properties. Feels like marketing to me, and I think they will do a masterful job of putting SEC/ACC matchups on the ACCN so that currently SECN subscribers have to pony up for the ACCN, as well, thus making the bundle seem more appealing.

Probably. COFH was on the SECN year one - next year it's in Atlanta, so what do you think are the odds it'll be on the ACCN? It could go back and forth indefinitely...

We've seen a lot more games scheduled between the two leagues in recent years. Some of the match-ups like A&M and Miami seem a little random because they've either never played before or played very rarely.

I think what's happening though is ESPN is "encouraging" these sorts of match-ups so they can own the rights to non-conference content either way it goes. Then they can also use more of these games on their conference networks.

Awful Announcing reports 3 conference games will be played on the ACC Network on opening weekend.

Interesting that they would loading the schedule up, but more interesting that we don't know for certain which match-ups are occurring yet.

Anyone else think it a little strange that they're shuffling the schedule like this only a few months before the season begins?

(01-10-2019 04:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Awful Announcing reports 3 conference games will be played on the ACC Network on opening weekend.

Interesting that they would loading the schedule up, but more interesting that we don't know for certain which match-ups are occurring yet.

Anyone else think it a little strange that they're shuffling the schedule like this only a few months before the season begins?

It tells me they don't have the anticipated carriage lined up and need to coerce the more rabid fans to buy the package.

I also noted that our buddy Hokie Mark had a guest blogger that estimated the ACCN payout rate at the same level of carriage % wise for the ACC as the SEC received and that even worse they estimated the payout to be the same industry leading that the SEC gets at $1.30. Both are very wild assumptions. The ACC viewing percentage from within their footprint isn't nearly as strong as the SEC's and there's no way IMO that they get the .47 per household that the Big 10 gets let alone the 1.30 that the SEC earns. The PACN gets .11 cents. They more than triple that, and if lucky they might surpass the .47 cents of the Big 10, but personally I don't think it's likely.

I think they'll earn around 3 million a team their first two years and earn around 7 by the third. This clown had them projected at 18 million per school and I'm going to save that and wait and when the more modest expectations come in I'm going to hammer some folks with the absurdity of their predictions. The third place he over estimated was in the advertising rates that were pulled in. Again he built them on the SEC's numbers. They aren't in the regular season for T1 and T2 rights which is why their media contract isn't as valuable. I estimate that they have a media contract that is currently 6 million per school undervalued and that's by close comparison with the Big 12's contract. But even if you give them that 6 million that ESPN has lowballed them their schools by the 3rd year of the ACCN should be earning around 41 million. The SEC should hit around 45-46 this year if everything pans out well. We have about a 2.2 million dollar bump from the way the bowls lined up last year vs this one, plus about 2 million per team in escalators to add to last year' 41 plus million.

But to me the opening with 3 games is not as key. 3 games have aired on occasion on the SECN particularly at season's opening date. But the fact that they haven't named the schools or games tells me they need some leverage for something.

(01-10-2019 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 04:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Anyone else think it a little strange that they're shuffling the schedule like this only a few months before the season begins?

It tells me they don't have the anticipated carriage lined up and need to coerce the more rabid fans to buy the package....

But to me the opening with 3 games is not as key. 3 games have aired on occasion on the SECN particularly at season's opening date. But the fact that they haven't named the schools or games tells me they need some leverage for something.

The number of games certainly is not strange at all. As a reminder, here are the games which were on the SEC Network the first week when it launched:

Thursday, 8/28/2014
6:00 PM - Texas A&M at South Carolina
9:15 PM - Temple at Vanderbilt

Saturday 8/30/2014
12 Noon - UT-Martin at Kentucky
4:00 PM - Arkansas at Auburn
7:30 PM - Southern Miss at Miss. St.

Sunday 8/31/2014
7:00 PM - Utah St. at Tennessee

SIX games, including 2 on Thursday and 1 on Sunday (TBH, I had forgotten about the Sunday game).

As for not knowing yet who would play - the ACC gets leftovers when it comes to TV, so usually every year the league sits down with ESPN after all of the other conferences have done their TV schedules so they can figure out the best schedule to get the best TV exposure. This year is probably no different - but that approach can mean changing some schedules as late as January (like we are seeing now).

Bottom Line: the ACC can't just say "here's our schedule - now put us on TV!" They have to work with ESPN - like it or not.

(01-10-2019 10:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 04:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Anyone else think it a little strange that they're shuffling the schedule like this only a few months before the season begins?

It tells me they don't have the anticipated carriage lined up and need to coerce the more rabid fans to buy the package....

But to me the opening with 3 games is not as key. 3 games have aired on occasion on the SECN particularly at season's opening date. But the fact that they haven't named the schools or games tells me they need some leverage for something.

The number of games certainly is not strange at all. As a reminder, here are the games which were on the SEC Network the first week when it launched:

Thursday, 8/28/2014
6:00 PM - Texas A&M at South Carolina
9:15 PM - Temple at Vanderbilt

Saturday 8/30/2014
12 Noon - UT-Martin at Kentucky
4:00 PM - Arkansas at Auburn
7:30 PM - Southern Miss at Miss. St.

Sunday 8/31/2014
7:00 PM - Utah St. at Tennessee

SIX games, including 2 on Thursday and 1 on Sunday (TBH, I had forgotten about the Sunday game).

As for not knowing yet who would play - the ACC gets leftovers when it comes to TV, so usually every year the league sits down with ESPN after all of the other conferences have done their TV schedules so they can figure out the best schedule to get the best TV exposure. This year is probably no different - but that approach can mean changing some schedules as late as January (like we are seeing now).

Bottom Line: the ACC can't just say "here's our schedule - now put us on TV!" They have to work with ESPN - like it or not.

I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that $1.30 is the industry leader by more than double that of the Big 10. I don't see the ACC starting there. The SEC's add rates have risen as they proved themselves. The ACC's won't start there. And the percentage of subscribing homes is an industry high for the SEC. The ACC will have to grow a subscriber base. And because of those 3 factors waiting to see what quality of opening day games will be available on the ACCN or its corresponding app is a leverage tool that you should play.

I stick by my estimates that at the start up you'll get 3 million or a little more and by year 3 you'll be knocking down 7 per school. How you do on the subscriber drive and in the first couple of year's ratings will go a long way to establishing higher subscription fees, and advertising rates.

Your guy started his calculations at the top. It's not going to happen that way.

By 2021 your conference schools should be drawing around 36 million. If you were paid according to the Big 12 rates and ratings you should be receiving 6 million more. ESPN is IMO shortchanging the ACC ~6 million per school per year as compared to the stats of the Big 12. But one of your posters has done some really good work on this that I think will be coming out at sometime in the not too distant future. Remember you were getting around 28 million this year for TV rights plus 3 million for not having a network. The Big 12 was getting 35 million plus their T3 revenue (15 million for UT, 7 million minus overhead for OU, 7 million for Kansas) and the rest less than 3 million. But by comparable stats the ACC if the Big 12 rates are justified is underpaid about 6 million per school. If the Big 12 is overpaid intentionally then ESPN should be wanting to relocate the most valuable pieces.

It's going to get really interesting in these next couple of years.

To put that into context the SEC gets about 2 million a year in escalators on its T2 & T3 contracts with ESPN. Last year the escalator was offset by the bowl rotation lows for the SEC where we lost around 2.2 million that we'll make again this year. So we should finish this year between 45-46 million in payouts. If the ACC were fairly valued you should be around 34 right now plus the 3 million you'll likely get from the ACCN and waiting on a spike in 2021 from the ACCN that would put you comfortably in the low 40's. The SEC is expecting between the low estimate of a 7 million per school boost from a new T1 contract in 2023-4 to 11 million on the high estimate for the same.

Right now I just don't see a closing of the gap. Especially if the Big 10 gets another 3 million bump when they renew in 2023.

IMO, ESPN needs to add members to the ACC so that the whole contract is reevaluated and your adds become the excuse to make up your undervaluation. Then you will close some of the gap.

(01-11-2019 12:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that $1.30 is the industry leader by more than double that of the Big 10. I don't see the ACC starting there. The SEC's add rates have risen as they proved themselves. The ACC's won't start there. And the percentage of subscribing homes is an industry high for the SEC. The ACC will have to grow a subscriber base. And because of those 3 factors waiting to see what quality of opening day games will be available on the ACCN or its corresponding app is a leverage tool that you should play.

I stick by my estimates that at the start up you'll get 3 million or a little more and by year 3 you'll be knocking down 7 per school. How you do on the subscriber drive and in the first couple of year's ratings will go a long way to establishing higher subscription fees, and advertising rates.

Your guy started his calculations at the top. It's not going to happen that way.

By 2021 your conference schools should be drawing around 36 million. If you were paid according to the Big 12 rates and ratings you should be receiving 6 million more. ESPN is IMO shortchanging the ACC ~6 million per school per year as compared to the stats of the Big 12. But one of your posters has done some really good work on this that I think will be coming out at sometime in the not too distant future. Remember you were getting around 28 million this year for TV rights plus 3 million for not having a network. The Big 12 was getting 35 million plus their T3 revenue (15 million for UT, 7 million minus overhead for OU, 7 million for Kansas) and the rest less than 3 million. But by comparable stats the ACC if the Big 12 rates are justified is underpaid about 6 million per school. If the Big 12 is overpaid intentionally then ESPN should be wanting to relocate the most valuable pieces.

It's going to get really interesting in these next couple of years.

To put that into context the SEC gets about 2 million a year in escalators on its T2 & T3 contracts with ESPN. Last year the escalator was offset by the bowl rotation lows for the SEC where we lost around 2.2 million that we'll make again this year. So we should finish this year between 45-46 million in payouts. If the ACC were fairly valued you should be around 34 right now plus the 3 million you'll likely get from the ACCN and waiting on a spike in 2021 from the ACCN that would put you comfortably in the low 40's. The SEC is expecting between the low estimate of a 7 million per school boost from a new T1 contract in 2023-4 to 11 million on the high estimate for the same.

Right now I just don't see a closing of the gap. Especially if the Big 10 gets another 3 million bump when they renew in 2023.

IMO, ESPN needs to add members to the ACC so that the whole contract is reevaluated and your adds become the excuse to make up your undervaluation. Then you will close some of the gap.

I see that as the only realistic way the ACC survives unscathed in the long term.

They need Notre Dame to fully commit and they probably need a few other solid properties to really be safe.

It wouldn't surprise me if ESPN were interested in moving Texas to the ACC. The problem is that's clearly not what is best for Texas and ESPN would really need to work some magic with that contract to get UT their $15M in T3 revenue and it would probably take more than that considering their options.

I'm not sure what the answer is.

(01-11-2019 01:03 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that $1.30 is the industry leader by more than double that of the Big 10. I don't see the ACC starting there. The SEC's add rates have risen as they proved themselves. The ACC's won't start there. And the percentage of subscribing homes is an industry high for the SEC. The ACC will have to grow a subscriber base. And because of those 3 factors waiting to see what quality of opening day games will be available on the ACCN or its corresponding app is a leverage tool that you should play.

I stick by my estimates that at the start up you'll get 3 million or a little more and by year 3 you'll be knocking down 7 per school. How you do on the subscriber drive and in the first couple of year's ratings will go a long way to establishing higher subscription fees, and advertising rates.

Your guy started his calculations at the top. It's not going to happen that way.

By 2021 your conference schools should be drawing around 36 million. If you were paid according to the Big 12 rates and ratings you should be receiving 6 million more. ESPN is IMO shortchanging the ACC ~6 million per school per year as compared to the stats of the Big 12. But one of your posters has done some really good work on this that I think will be coming out at sometime in the not too distant future. Remember you were getting around 28 million this year for TV rights plus 3 million for not having a network. The Big 12 was getting 35 million plus their T3 revenue (15 million for UT, 7 million minus overhead for OU, 7 million for Kansas) and the rest less than 3 million. But by comparable stats the ACC if the Big 12 rates are justified is underpaid about 6 million per school. If the Big 12 is overpaid intentionally then ESPN should be wanting to relocate the most valuable pieces.

It's going to get really interesting in these next couple of years.

To put that into context the SEC gets about 2 million a year in escalators on its T2 & T3 contracts with ESPN. Last year the escalator was offset by the bowl rotation lows for the SEC where we lost around 2.2 million that we'll make again this year. So we should finish this year between 45-46 million in payouts. If the ACC were fairly valued you should be around 34 right now plus the 3 million you'll likely get from the ACCN and waiting on a spike in 2021 from the ACCN that would put you comfortably in the low 40's. The SEC is expecting between the low estimate of a 7 million per school boost from a new T1 contract in 2023-4 to 11 million on the high estimate for the same.

Right now I just don't see a closing of the gap. Especially if the Big 10 gets another 3 million bump when they renew in 2023.

IMO, ESPN needs to add members to the ACC so that the whole contract is reevaluated and your adds become the excuse to make up your undervaluation. Then you will close some of the gap.

I see that as the only realistic way the ACC survives unscathed in the long term.

They need Notre Dame to fully commit and they probably need a few other solid properties to really be safe.

It wouldn't surprise me if ESPN were interested in moving Texas to the ACC. The problem is that's clearly not what is best for Texas and ESPN would really need to work some magic with that contract to get UT their $15M in T3 revenue and it would probably take more than that considering their options.

I'm not sure what the answer is.

It's not going to be popular, but the best way around this mess is to take the schools in order of priority.

Texas will remain an ESPN product in the SEC with Texas Tech in tow. SEC stands at 16.

Oklahoma and Kansas will head to the Big 10. Big 10 stands at 16 and FOX keeps their dibs on Oklahoma.

West Virginia goes all in with the ACC reconnecting their footprint. Notre Dame realizes they will never get another shot over at least a 1 loss conference champ all of which play a tougher schedule than 5 random ACC schools, Navy, and 2 PAC schools with a lone big game like Michigan. Finebaum said this today. He didn't think N.D. would get another pass without ending the season in a championship game.

The PAC has to either opt to stay way behind or they move into DFW with T.C.U., pick up KState, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State.

One way it works out a bit more equitably, the other way it doesn't. Either way ESPN/FOX gets Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas Tech, West Virginia and Notre Dame completely. They have the product from the most pro college regions between them. They get to renew and extend existing contracts, and they both still lease PAC product for the late slot at a cheap price.

(01-11-2019 12:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 04:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Anyone else think it a little strange that they're shuffling the schedule like this only a few months before the season begins?

It tells me they don't have the anticipated carriage lined up and need to coerce the more rabid fans to buy the package....

But to me the opening with 3 games is not as key. 3 games have aired on occasion on the SECN particularly at season's opening date. But the fact that they haven't named the schools or games tells me they need some leverage for something.

The number of games certainly is not strange at all. As a reminder, here are the games which were on the SEC Network the first week when it launched:

Thursday, 8/28/2014
6:00 PM - Texas A&M at South Carolina
9:15 PM - Temple at Vanderbilt

Saturday 8/30/2014
12 Noon - UT-Martin at Kentucky
4:00 PM - Arkansas at Auburn
7:30 PM - Southern Miss at Miss. St.

Sunday 8/31/2014
7:00 PM - Utah St. at Tennessee

SIX games, including 2 on Thursday and 1 on Sunday (TBH, I had forgotten about the Sunday game).

As for not knowing yet who would play - the ACC gets leftovers when it comes to TV, so usually every year the league sits down with ESPN after all of the other conferences have done their TV schedules so they can figure out the best schedule to get the best TV exposure. This year is probably no different - but that approach can mean changing some schedules as late as January (like we are seeing now).

Bottom Line: the ACC can't just say "here's our schedule - now put us on TV!" They have to work with ESPN - like it or not.

I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that $1.30 is the industry leader by more than double that of the Big 10. I don't see the ACC starting there. The SEC's add rates have risen as they proved themselves. The ACC's won't start there. And the percentage of subscribing homes is an industry high for the SEC. The ACC will have to grow a subscriber base. And because of those 3 factors waiting to see what quality of opening day games will be available on the ACCN or its corresponding app is a leverage tool that you should play.

I stick by my estimates that at the start up you'll get 3 million or a little more and by year 3 you'll be knocking down 7 per school. How you do on the subscriber drive and in the first couple of year's ratings will go a long way to establishing higher subscription fees, and advertising rates.

Your guy started his calculations at the top. It's not going to happen that way.

By 2021 your conference schools should be drawing around 36 million. If you were paid according to the Big 12 rates and ratings you should be receiving 6 million more. ESPN is IMO shortchanging the ACC ~6 million per school per year as compared to the stats of the Big 12. But one of your posters has done some really good work on this that I think will be coming out at sometime in the not too distant future. Remember you were getting around 28 million this year for TV rights plus 3 million for not having a network. The Big 12 was getting 35 million plus their T3 revenue (15 million for UT, 7 million minus overhead for OU, 7 million for Kansas) and the rest less than 3 million. But by comparable stats the ACC if the Big 12 rates are justified is underpaid about 6 million per school. If the Big 12 is overpaid intentionally then ESPN should be wanting to relocate the most valuable pieces.

It's going to get really interesting in these next couple of years.

To put that into context the SEC gets about 2 million a year in escalators on its T2 & T3 contracts with ESPN. Last year the escalator was offset by the bowl rotation lows for the SEC where we lost around 2.2 million that we'll make again this year. So we should finish this year between 45-46 million in payouts. If the ACC were fairly valued you should be around 34 right now plus the 3 million you'll likely get from the ACCN and waiting on a spike in 2021 from the ACCN that would put you comfortably in the low 40's. The SEC is expecting between the low estimate of a 7 million per school boost from a new T1 contract in 2023-4 to 11 million on the high estimate for the same.

Right now I just don't see a closing of the gap. Especially if the Big 10 gets another 3 million bump when they renew in 2023.

IMO, ESPN needs to add members to the ACC so that the whole contract is reevaluated and your adds become the excuse to make up your undervaluation. Then you will close some of the gap.

Yeah, I wasn't addressing the money, just the opening week games and the lateness of the ACC football schedule.

My ACC revenue projections are fairly close to yours. I project about $30M/team for the next tax return (2017, IIRC), but the same again for 2018 (due to no Orange Bowl contract year). I agree that, without adding another brand or two, the ACC only gets to about $40M/team. I also agree that the Big XII is a reasonable "market price" indicator, and that the ACC is underpaid by about the amount you showed.

One thing I haven't gotten an answer to yet: how much of a bump did ACC teams receive for extending the contract/GoR? I'm sure it was something, just not sure how much. There's some indication that the $3M "no network" bump may just stay permanently as a "long-term contract" bump. Still less than $6M, but better than nothing, I guess?

I've stated many times that the two most likely brands to add would be WVU and Notre Dame all-in. Beyond those 2 I'm not sure who else the ACC could/would add - maybe Iowa State? maybe a Gulf-coast team like Houston or a little further West like TCU? Personally I'd love to see Oklahoma State in the ACC, but the school presidents won't go for that, IMO.

(01-11-2019 12:07 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 04:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Anyone else think it a little strange that they're shuffling the schedule like this only a few months before the season begins?

It tells me they don't have the anticipated carriage lined up and need to coerce the more rabid fans to buy the package....

But to me the opening with 3 games is not as key. 3 games have aired on occasion on the SECN particularly at season's opening date. But the fact that they haven't named the schools or games tells me they need some leverage for something.

The number of games certainly is not strange at all. As a reminder, here are the games which were on the SEC Network the first week when it launched:

Thursday, 8/28/2014
6:00 PM - Texas A&M at South Carolina
9:15 PM - Temple at Vanderbilt

Saturday 8/30/2014
12 Noon - UT-Martin at Kentucky
4:00 PM - Arkansas at Auburn
7:30 PM - Southern Miss at Miss. St.

Sunday 8/31/2014
7:00 PM - Utah St. at Tennessee

SIX games, including 2 on Thursday and 1 on Sunday (TBH, I had forgotten about the Sunday game).

As for not knowing yet who would play - the ACC gets leftovers when it comes to TV, so usually every year the league sits down with ESPN after all of the other conferences have done their TV schedules so they can figure out the best schedule to get the best TV exposure. This year is probably no different - but that approach can mean changing some schedules as late as January (like we are seeing now).

Bottom Line: the ACC can't just say "here's our schedule - now put us on TV!" They have to work with ESPN - like it or not.

I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that $1.30 is the industry leader by more than double that of the Big 10. I don't see the ACC starting there. The SEC's add rates have risen as they proved themselves. The ACC's won't start there. And the percentage of subscribing homes is an industry high for the SEC. The ACC will have to grow a subscriber base. And because of those 3 factors waiting to see what quality of opening day games will be available on the ACCN or its corresponding app is a leverage tool that you should play.

I stick by my estimates that at the start up you'll get 3 million or a little more and by year 3 you'll be knocking down 7 per school. How you do on the subscriber drive and in the first couple of year's ratings will go a long way to establishing higher subscription fees, and advertising rates.

Your guy started his calculations at the top. It's not going to happen that way.

By 2021 your conference schools should be drawing around 36 million. If you were paid according to the Big 12 rates and ratings you should be receiving 6 million more. ESPN is IMO shortchanging the ACC ~6 million per school per year as compared to the stats of the Big 12. But one of your posters has done some really good work on this that I think will be coming out at sometime in the not too distant future. Remember you were getting around 28 million this year for TV rights plus 3 million for not having a network. The Big 12 was getting 35 million plus their T3 revenue (15 million for UT, 7 million minus overhead for OU, 7 million for Kansas) and the rest less than 3 million. But by comparable stats the ACC if the Big 12 rates are justified is underpaid about 6 million per school. If the Big 12 is overpaid intentionally then ESPN should be wanting to relocate the most valuable pieces.

It's going to get really interesting in these next couple of years.

To put that into context the SEC gets about 2 million a year in escalators on its T2 & T3 contracts with ESPN. Last year the escalator was offset by the bowl rotation lows for the SEC where we lost around 2.2 million that we'll make again this year. So we should finish this year between 45-46 million in payouts. If the ACC were fairly valued you should be around 34 right now plus the 3 million you'll likely get from the ACCN and waiting on a spike in 2021 from the ACCN that would put you comfortably in the low 40's. The SEC is expecting between the low estimate of a 7 million per school boost from a new T1 contract in 2023-4 to 11 million on the high estimate for the same.

Right now I just don't see a closing of the gap. Especially if the Big 10 gets another 3 million bump when they renew in 2023.

IMO, ESPN needs to add members to the ACC so that the whole contract is reevaluated and your adds become the excuse to make up your undervaluation. Then you will close some of the gap.

Yeah, I wasn't addressing the money, just the opening week games and the lateness of the ACC football schedule.

My ACC revenue projections are fairly close to yours. I project about $30M/team for the next tax return (2017, IIRC), but the same again for 2018 (due to no Orange Bowl contract year). I agree that, without adding another brand or two, the ACC only gets to about $40M/team. I also agree that the Big XII is a reasonable "market price" indicator, and that the ACC is underpaid by about the amount you showed.

One thing I haven't gotten an answer to yet: how much of a bump did ACC teams receive for extending the contract/GoR? I'm sure it was something, just not sure how much. There's some indication that the $3M "no network" bump may just stay permanently as a "long-term contract" bump. Still less than $6M, but better than nothing, I guess?

I've stated many times that the two most likely brands to add would be WVU and Notre Dame all-in. Beyond those 2 I'm not sure who else the ACC could/would add - maybe Iowa State? maybe a Gulf-coast team like Houston or a little further West like TCU? Personally I'd love to see Oklahoma State in the ACC, but the school presidents won't go for that, IMO.

My question is this....

If the $3M bump was given because a network wasn't in place then what happens when the network is operational?

My initial guess would be that the network is being used to fund the bump going forward and whatever the ACC gets on top of that is gravy. I'm not sure the payment would continue if the promise of a network is being fulfilled.

I'm not sure what the contract says, but that's how it strikes me.

(01-11-2019 02:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:07 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 05:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It tells me they don't have the anticipated carriage lined up and need to coerce the more rabid fans to buy the package....

But to me the opening with 3 games is not as key. 3 games have aired on occasion on the SECN particularly at season's opening date. But the fact that they haven't named the schools or games tells me they need some leverage for something.

The number of games certainly is not strange at all. As a reminder, here are the games which were on the SEC Network the first week when it launched:

Thursday, 8/28/2014
6:00 PM - Texas A&M at South Carolina
9:15 PM - Temple at Vanderbilt

Saturday 8/30/2014
12 Noon - UT-Martin at Kentucky
4:00 PM - Arkansas at Auburn
7:30 PM - Southern Miss at Miss. St.

Sunday 8/31/2014
7:00 PM - Utah St. at Tennessee

SIX games, including 2 on Thursday and 1 on Sunday (TBH, I had forgotten about the Sunday game).

As for not knowing yet who would play - the ACC gets leftovers when it comes to TV, so usually every year the league sits down with ESPN after all of the other conferences have done their TV schedules so they can figure out the best schedule to get the best TV exposure. This year is probably no different - but that approach can mean changing some schedules as late as January (like we are seeing now).

Bottom Line: the ACC can't just say "here's our schedule - now put us on TV!" They have to work with ESPN - like it or not.

I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that $1.30 is the industry leader by more than double that of the Big 10. I don't see the ACC starting there. The SEC's add rates have risen as they proved themselves. The ACC's won't start there. And the percentage of subscribing homes is an industry high for the SEC. The ACC will have to grow a subscriber base. And because of those 3 factors waiting to see what quality of opening day games will be available on the ACCN or its corresponding app is a leverage tool that you should play.

I stick by my estimates that at the start up you'll get 3 million or a little more and by year 3 you'll be knocking down 7 per school. How you do on the subscriber drive and in the first couple of year's ratings will go a long way to establishing higher subscription fees, and advertising rates.

Your guy started his calculations at the top. It's not going to happen that way.

By 2021 your conference schools should be drawing around 36 million. If you were paid according to the Big 12 rates and ratings you should be receiving 6 million more. ESPN is IMO shortchanging the ACC ~6 million per school per year as compared to the stats of the Big 12. But one of your posters has done some really good work on this that I think will be coming out at sometime in the not too distant future. Remember you were getting around 28 million this year for TV rights plus 3 million for not having a network. The Big 12 was getting 35 million plus their T3 revenue (15 million for UT, 7 million minus overhead for OU, 7 million for Kansas) and the rest less than 3 million. But by comparable stats the ACC if the Big 12 rates are justified is underpaid about 6 million per school. If the Big 12 is overpaid intentionally then ESPN should be wanting to relocate the most valuable pieces.

It's going to get really interesting in these next couple of years.

To put that into context the SEC gets about 2 million a year in escalators on its T2 & T3 contracts with ESPN. Last year the escalator was offset by the bowl rotation lows for the SEC where we lost around 2.2 million that we'll make again this year. So we should finish this year between 45-46 million in payouts. If the ACC were fairly valued you should be around 34 right now plus the 3 million you'll likely get from the ACCN and waiting on a spike in 2021 from the ACCN that would put you comfortably in the low 40's. The SEC is expecting between the low estimate of a 7 million per school boost from a new T1 contract in 2023-4 to 11 million on the high estimate for the same.

Right now I just don't see a closing of the gap. Especially if the Big 10 gets another 3 million bump when they renew in 2023.

IMO, ESPN needs to add members to the ACC so that the whole contract is reevaluated and your adds become the excuse to make up your undervaluation. Then you will close some of the gap.

Yeah, I wasn't addressing the money, just the opening week games and the lateness of the ACC football schedule.

My ACC revenue projections are fairly close to yours. I project about $30M/team for the next tax return (2017, IIRC), but the same again for 2018 (due to no Orange Bowl contract year). I agree that, without adding another brand or two, the ACC only gets to about $40M/team. I also agree that the Big XII is a reasonable "market price" indicator, and that the ACC is underpaid by about the amount you showed.

One thing I haven't gotten an answer to yet: how much of a bump did ACC teams receive for extending the contract/GoR? I'm sure it was something, just not sure how much. There's some indication that the $3M "no network" bump may just stay permanently as a "long-term contract" bump. Still less than $6M, but better than nothing, I guess?

I've stated many times that the two most likely brands to add would be WVU and Notre Dame all-in. Beyond those 2 I'm not sure who else the ACC could/would add - maybe Iowa State? maybe a Gulf-coast team like Houston or a little further West like TCU? Personally I'd love to see Oklahoma State in the ACC, but the school presidents won't go for that, IMO.

My question is this....

If the $3M bump was given because a network wasn't in place then what happens when the network is operational?

My initial guess would be that the network is being used to fund the bump going forward and whatever the ACC gets on top of that is gravy. I'm not sure the payment would continue if the promise of a network is being fulfilled.

I'm not sure what the contract says, but that's how it strikes me.

But as you know, conferences also get a bump when they extend their T1/T2 contracts (which the ACC also did)...

(01-12-2019 12:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 02:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:07 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 12:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 10:53 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The number of games certainly is not strange at all. As a reminder, here are the games which were on the SEC Network the first week when it launched:

Thursday, 8/28/2014
6:00 PM - Texas A&M at South Carolina
9:15 PM - Temple at Vanderbilt

Saturday 8/30/2014
12 Noon - UT-Martin at Kentucky
4:00 PM - Arkansas at Auburn
7:30 PM - Southern Miss at Miss. St.

Sunday 8/31/2014
7:00 PM - Utah St. at Tennessee

SIX games, including 2 on Thursday and 1 on Sunday (TBH, I had forgotten about the Sunday game).

As for not knowing yet who would play - the ACC gets leftovers when it comes to TV, so usually every year the league sits down with ESPN after all of the other conferences have done their TV schedules so they can figure out the best schedule to get the best TV exposure. This year is probably no different - but that approach can mean changing some schedules as late as January (like we are seeing now).

Bottom Line: the ACC can't just say "here's our schedule - now put us on TV!" They have to work with ESPN - like it or not.

I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that $1.30 is the industry leader by more than double that of the Big 10. I don't see the ACC starting there. The SEC's add rates have risen as they proved themselves. The ACC's won't start there. And the percentage of subscribing homes is an industry high for the SEC. The ACC will have to grow a subscriber base. And because of those 3 factors waiting to see what quality of opening day games will be available on the ACCN or its corresponding app is a leverage tool that you should play.

I stick by my estimates that at the start up you'll get 3 million or a little more and by year 3 you'll be knocking down 7 per school. How you do on the subscriber drive and in the first couple of year's ratings will go a long way to establishing higher subscription fees, and advertising rates.

Your guy started his calculations at the top. It's not going to happen that way.

By 2021 your conference schools should be drawing around 36 million. If you were paid according to the Big 12 rates and ratings you should be receiving 6 million more. ESPN is IMO shortchanging the ACC ~6 million per school per year as compared to the stats of the Big 12. But one of your posters has done some really good work on this that I think will be coming out at sometime in the not too distant future. Remember you were getting around 28 million this year for TV rights plus 3 million for not having a network. The Big 12 was getting 35 million plus their T3 revenue (15 million for UT, 7 million minus overhead for OU, 7 million for Kansas) and the rest less than 3 million. But by comparable stats the ACC if the Big 12 rates are justified is underpaid about 6 million per school. If the Big 12 is overpaid intentionally then ESPN should be wanting to relocate the most valuable pieces.

It's going to get really interesting in these next couple of years.

To put that into context the SEC gets about 2 million a year in escalators on its T2 & T3 contracts with ESPN. Last year the escalator was offset by the bowl rotation lows for the SEC where we lost around 2.2 million that we'll make again this year. So we should finish this year between 45-46 million in payouts. If the ACC were fairly valued you should be around 34 right now plus the 3 million you'll likely get from the ACCN and waiting on a spike in 2021 from the ACCN that would put you comfortably in the low 40's. The SEC is expecting between the low estimate of a 7 million per school boost from a new T1 contract in 2023-4 to 11 million on the high estimate for the same.

Right now I just don't see a closing of the gap. Especially if the Big 10 gets another 3 million bump when they renew in 2023.

IMO, ESPN needs to add members to the ACC so that the whole contract is reevaluated and your adds become the excuse to make up your undervaluation. Then you will close some of the gap.

Yeah, I wasn't addressing the money, just the opening week games and the lateness of the ACC football schedule.

My ACC revenue projections are fairly close to yours. I project about $30M/team for the next tax return (2017, IIRC), but the same again for 2018 (due to no Orange Bowl contract year). I agree that, without adding another brand or two, the ACC only gets to about $40M/team. I also agree that the Big XII is a reasonable "market price" indicator, and that the ACC is underpaid by about the amount you showed.

One thing I haven't gotten an answer to yet: how much of a bump did ACC teams receive for extending the contract/GoR? I'm sure it was something, just not sure how much. There's some indication that the $3M "no network" bump may just stay permanently as a "long-term contract" bump. Still less than $6M, but better than nothing, I guess?

I've stated many times that the two most likely brands to add would be WVU and Notre Dame all-in. Beyond those 2 I'm not sure who else the ACC could/would add - maybe Iowa State? maybe a Gulf-coast team like Houston or a little further West like TCU? Personally I'd love to see Oklahoma State in the ACC, but the school presidents won't go for that, IMO.

My question is this....

If the $3M bump was given because a network wasn't in place then what happens when the network is operational?

My initial guess would be that the network is being used to fund the bump going forward and whatever the ACC gets on top of that is gravy. I'm not sure the payment would continue if the promise of a network is being fulfilled.

I'm not sure what the contract says, but that's how it strikes me.

But as you know, conferences also get a bump when they extend their T1/T2 contracts (which the ACC also did)...

True. I just wish I knew what the contract said.

It did appear though that ESPN was pushing back on an ACC Network for some time. Of course, they've committed to it now. I just keep wondering what exactly this "no network bump" entails.

https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...e-acc.html