(08-14-2019 02:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Who made any "over the top" claims or did any chest thumping?

The wild claims were all in the Network thread and other similar threads on the ACC board. One citing the AD at F.S.U. claiming they would make 15 million per team from the network. That's over 5 million more than the SEC and Big 10 make from theirs. And the viewing numbers and ratings history of the ACC simply aren't there to back it and never have been. You should be able to make near 3 million your first year and probably have a top of 7 which is what I've said all along. 15 million and those who believe it are just ridiculous.

(08-14-2019 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 01:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Rumor is that Dish is right behind them.

Mark, it's like I told you months ago, it's all about the rate. It's good for the ACC that you are getting carriage with Spectrum and Dish if you land it. The question is during the negotiation phase whether or not ESPN adjusted the rate from what was initially asked.

We won't know that until your earnings are announced next year. Rates are based on hard viewer numbers and is quite different from gaining carriage. The PAC carriage has been shrinking. But they were on most of these services initially, but at 10 cents per subscription. That's why their average of in footprint and out of footprint was 11 cents. When the companies saw that there was more money coming in from carrying them on subscription than there was from their footprint at higher rates they dropped them except at the most expensive tiers.

I still advise cautious optimism as opposed to over the top claims and chest thumping.

The other factor you cannot control is the fact that the BTN and SECN are flat or declining and that Conference Networks (any of them) may not be long for this world. In other words it's a very tough time to be opening one. It will earn you some money for a few more years, but the golden days of conference networks is at least 1 year hence if not 2.

I think the potential for a network dedicated to college sports is there, but I think it's going to have to combine rights from multiple conferences.

In other words, I do agree with you, the days of each conference having their own network are most likely numbered.

(08-14-2019 02:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 01:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Rumor is that Dish is right behind them.

Mark, it's like I told you months ago, it's all about the rate. It's good for the ACC that you are getting carriage with Spectrum and Dish if you land it. The question is during the negotiation phase whether or not ESPN adjusted the rate from what was initially asked.

We won't know that until your earnings are announced next year. Rates are based on hard viewer numbers and is quite different from gaining carriage. The PAC carriage has been shrinking. But they were on most of these services initially, but at 10 cents per subscription. That's why their average of in footprint and out of footprint was 11 cents. When the companies saw that there was more money coming in from carrying them on subscription than there was from their footprint at higher rates they dropped them except at the most expensive tiers.

I still advise cautious optimism as opposed to over the top claims and chest thumping.

The other factor you cannot control is the fact that the BTN and SECN are flat or declining and that Conference Networks (any of them) may not be long for this world. In other words it's a very tough time to be opening one. It will earn you some money for a few more years, but the golden days of conference networks is at least 1 year hence if not 2.

I think the potential for a network dedicated to college sports is there, but I think it's going to have to combine rights from multiple conferences.

In other words, I do agree with you, the days of each conference having their own network are most likely numbered.

...or they'll all end up being bundled with Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+

We can probably agree that they won't remain on BASIC CABLE much longer.

(08-14-2019 03:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 02:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 01:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Rumor is that Dish is right behind them.

Mark, it's like I told you months ago, it's all about the rate. It's good for the ACC that you are getting carriage with Spectrum and Dish if you land it. The question is during the negotiation phase whether or not ESPN adjusted the rate from what was initially asked.

We won't know that until your earnings are announced next year. Rates are based on hard viewer numbers and is quite different from gaining carriage. The PAC carriage has been shrinking. But they were on most of these services initially, but at 10 cents per subscription. That's why their average of in footprint and out of footprint was 11 cents. When the companies saw that there was more money coming in from carrying them on subscription than there was from their footprint at higher rates they dropped them except at the most expensive tiers.

I still advise cautious optimism as opposed to over the top claims and chest thumping.

The other factor you cannot control is the fact that the BTN and SECN are flat or declining and that Conference Networks (any of them) may not be long for this world. In other words it's a very tough time to be opening one. It will earn you some money for a few more years, but the golden days of conference networks is at least 1 year hence if not 2.

I think the potential for a network dedicated to college sports is there, but I think it's going to have to combine rights from multiple conferences.

In other words, I do agree with you, the days of each conference having their own network are most likely numbered.

...or they'll all end up being bundled with Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+

We can probably agree that they won't remain on BASIC CABLE much longer.

They won't create streaming services dedicated solely to individual conferences though.

Whatever is under the ESPN umbrella will just be included in ESPN+. Any additional revenue for conferences could come in the form of payouts based on total views of branded content.

Outside of that, an individual feed could survive a little easier on a cable replacement service like Hulu, Playstation Vue, or YouTube TV; but the sub rate would be much lower.

My bet though is that FAANG companies alter how business is done. Our more specific predictions are probably not accounting for a radically different pay model.

(08-12-2019 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So now that Georgia Tech has budgeted 1 million in revenue from the ACCN for 2019-20 and the Atlanta Journal Constitution has reported the same projection he's having to cover his ridiculous claims. He should just shut up an admit he was way off base.

Per Associate AD Marvin Lewis, that was the number used in budgeting at GT and was, and I quote, "extremely conservative". It makes sense ... if you're going to have a big boy budget and have a major revenue line item that is unknown, you had better budget it for the lowest you could possibly imagine it making so that if the worst happens your budget isn't sunk. Todd Stansbury also said in his monthly podcast he expected the actual number to be considerably and multiple times higher.

(08-14-2019 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 02:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Who made any "over the top" claims or did any chest thumping?

The wild claims were all in the Network thread and other similar threads on the ACC board. One citing the AD at F.S.U. claiming they would make 15 million per team from the network. That's over 5 million more than the SEC and Big 10 make from theirs. And the viewing numbers and ratings history of the ACC simply aren't there to back it and never have been. You should be able to make near 3 million your first year and probably have a top of 7 which is what I've said all along. 15 million and those who believe it are just ridiculous.

That never included me. I made no such predictions.

Did Mark? It just seemed a strange comment coming right after our posts.

(08-14-2019 06:44 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 02:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Who made any "over the top" claims or did any chest thumping?

The wild claims were all in the Network thread and other similar threads on the ACC board. One citing the AD at F.S.U. claiming they would make 15 million per team from the network. That's over 5 million more than the SEC and Big 10 make from theirs. And the viewing numbers and ratings history of the ACC simply aren't there to back it and never have been. You should be able to make near 3 million your first year and probably have a top of 7 which is what I've said all along. 15 million and those who believe it are just ridiculous.

That never included me. I made no such predictions.

Did Mark? It just seemed a strange comment coming right after our posts.

Nope, and I took no umbrage from Mark's responses or yours. But you were responding in medias res. We have discussed the wild claims made on the ACC board and have discussed our disbelief that the "Conference Network" concept will last. We've also hashed out here, as I am sure others have elsewhere, the relationship between ratings and rates.

Still, it's rather odd you should show up to defend remarks not made to you, or about Notre Dame.

(08-14-2019 07:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 06:44 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 02:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Who made any "over the top" claims or did any chest thumping?

The wild claims were all in the Network thread and other similar threads on the ACC board. One citing the AD at F.S.U. claiming they would make 15 million per team from the network. That's over 5 million more than the SEC and Big 10 make from theirs. And the viewing numbers and ratings history of the ACC simply aren't there to back it and never have been. You should be able to make near 3 million your first year and probably have a top of 7 which is what I've said all along. 15 million and those who believe it are just ridiculous.

That never included me. I made no such predictions.

Did Mark? It just seemed a strange comment coming right after our posts.

Nope, and I took no umbrage from Mark's responses or yours. But you were responding in medias res. We have discussed the wild claims made on the ACC board and have discussed our disbelief that the "Conference Network" concept will last. We've also hashed out here, as I am sure others have elsewhere, the relationship between ratings and rates.

Still, it's rather odd you should show up to defend remarks not made to you, or about Notre Dame.

I didn't "defend" anything. I said that I thought your post was curious.

I did think that the remark may have been made about my post, which I felt was odd and why I asked.

Like I said, your comment seemed strange coming right after I and Mark posted the news that Spectrum signed up and Dish was rumored to follow.

That is all. No big deal.