(03-15-2016 08:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Well then, as TWC Viewers, can We now disconnect from having to have both the B1GN and SECN since there is nothing of interest to watch on Them ?

(03-15-2016 08:44 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 08:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Well then, as TWC Viewers, can We now disconnect from having to have both the B1GN and SECN since there is nothing of interest to watch on Them ?

Well, technically, I think options may already be available to rid you of both the BTN and SECN if you desire, but not sure how TWC's starter service works in your area.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-15-2016 09:27 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 08:44 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 08:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Well then, as TWC Viewers, can We now disconnect from having to have both the B1GN and SECN since there is nothing of interest to watch on Them ?

Well, technically, I think options may already be available to rid you of both the BTN and SECN if you desire, but not sure how TWC's starter service works in your area.

Cheers,
Neil

The skinny bundle offered by Sling TV does NOT include either the SECN or the BTN on the basic package (both are in the sports package and, based on the price, both are at the reduced "out of footprint" rate).

These huge cable network payout projections will likely NEVER happen, not even for the SEC and Big Ten (much less for any other conference). JMO.

(03-15-2016 09:42 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 09:27 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 08:44 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 08:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Well then, as TWC Viewers, can We now disconnect from having to have both the B1GN and SECN since there is nothing of interest to watch on Them ?

Well, technically, I think options may already be available to rid you of both the BTN and SECN if you desire, but not sure how TWC's starter service works in your area.

Cheers,
Neil

The skinny bundle offered by Sling TV does NOT include either the SECN or the BTN on the basic package (both are in the sports package and, based on the price, both are at the reduced "out of footprint" rate).

These huge cable network payout projections will likely NEVER happen, not even for the SEC and Big Ten (much less for any other conference). JMO.

I've been looking into the TWC Starter Service with Sling TV. I did see that their extra sports package (that includes ESPNU ESPNNews) also included the SECN, but the info I had didn't have the BTN on it. Rather it had something called beIN sports. Since all I need is ESPN (which is included in the TWC Starter Service and Sling TV) for the ESPN app on my Roku, I won't be getting their sports package. I want Sling because of TNT, TBS, AMC, etc.

The only reason why I haven't done the above is because I am hearing there have been issues with Sling TV and I am waiting for them to work any bugs out first.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-15-2016 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  SEC is making $7 million PER TEAM right now and that is a partial payment.

I don't get folks claiming the huge money will never happen....it has already happened and will grow.

ACC has a revenue problem. Denying it is the #1 issue.

(03-15-2016 09:58 AM)HRFlossY Wrote:  Ok so simply put.....
we want to be able to EASILY watch our games whether conference or OCC in a cleanly lit and well presented HD manner. I would like consistant and professional host of ACC shows that talk about all conference sports YEAR ROUND with the focus on the two important ones of course.

That is basically what we all want....now if you want call it a Channel or a App or a Package deal or something NEW is the details. But that is it....right?
FLossY Out...

(03-15-2016 10:10 AM)nole Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 09:58 AM)HRFlossY Wrote:  Ok so simply put.....
we want to be able to EASILY watch our games whether conference or OCC in a cleanly lit and well presented HD manner. I would like consistant and professional host of ACC shows that talk about all conference sports YEAR ROUND with the focus on the two important ones of course.

That is basically what we all want....now if you want call it a Channel or a App or a Package deal or something NEW is the details. But that is it....right?
FLossY Out...

IMHO there are multiple goals:

1) COMPARABLE revenue....maybe 80% of SEC/B1G. Without this, whole thing is pointless.

2) POSTIVE coverage.....the ACC needs an ADVOCATE. The belief this doesn't matter is crazy. It is huge.

(03-15-2016 10:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  SEC is making $7 million PER TEAM right now and that is a partial payment.

I don't get folks claiming the huge money will never happen....it has already happened and will grow.

ACC has a revenue problem. Denying it is the #1 issue.

$7 million IS a big deal, but is that just the start of a growing gap... or the peak of a short-term blip? I say if it isn't the peak, it's close to peaking.

(03-15-2016 12:43 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I know this, no amount of annual revenue will satisfy some FSU and Clemson fans, and no amount of revenue they could ever raise will be equal to what Texas, Ohio State, Penn State, or Bama can generate in a year. Coveting something that is a partial function of university enrollment and alumni size and university age is akin to wanting to be 6-8" when you are 5-11". Some variables are damn near fixed.

(03-15-2016 12:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 12:43 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I know this, no amount of annual revenue will satisfy some FSU and Clemson fans, and no amount of revenue they could ever raise will be equal to what Texas, Ohio State, Penn State, or Bama can generate in a year. Coveting something that is a partial function of university enrollment and alumni size and university age is akin to wanting to be 6-8" when you are 5-11". Some variables are damn near fixed.

You keep using this smokescreen but it's just that...a smokescreen.

Clemson and FSU fans are fully aware that Alabama, Ohio State, etc. will always have a revenue advantage because of their huge donor base, but that's not a conference problem.

What is a conference problem is the money advantage that their conferences gives them compared to the ACC. When you can point out a post by any Clemson or FSU fan has complained about any revenue other than what the ACC distributes to it's membership then you might have a point but as it stands you don't. All you are doing is trying to muddy the water to make your precious ACC look better.

It's an issue that concerns a lot of people involved with the athletic programs at not just Clemson and FSU. I'm not talking about just message board posters but people who make the big decisions. If the ACC continues to ignore the problem like they have since the horrid contract was signed they are going to find themselves in a situation like the SoCon found themselves in 1953. Left behind wondering where things went wrong. Ironic that the issue the created the ACC could very well be the one that results in it's downfall.

(03-15-2016 12:43 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 09:54 AM)nole Wrote:  SEC is making $7 million PER TEAM right now and that is a partial payment.

I don't get folks claiming the huge money will never happen....it has already happened and will grow.

ACC has a revenue problem. Denying it is the #1 issue.

$7 million IS a big deal, but is that just the start of a growing gap... or the peak of a short-term blip? I say if it isn't the peak, it's close to peaking.

This year's distribution is in the $24 million range - that's FY 15/16 the year that ends this June. One thing the SEC does is to project a revenue figure and release ahead of the end of the FY. The ACC tends to do the opposite and you get confirmation of a figure after taxes are filed, putting the confirmed ACC number about a year behind the SEC numbers for the same FY.

It's like property taxes in NC, you are billed almost six months ahead of when the payment is due, but the bill is actually for the upcoming year. (This is why tax escrow often takes a good paralegal when selling property in NC)

While I had always heard $2 million for no network, three may have always been the number. Anyway, look for 16/17 distributions (distributions for revenues starting July 1, 2016) to be in the $27-28 M range. Also keep in mind the TV portion goes up about 4-5% a year IIRC.

Having been force fed the SECN I can attest it sucks. It's boring and that dipshit from Alabama who has a show is boring. Most of the time SECN is showing reruns of Green Acres and the like.

(03-15-2016 12:59 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Is that a Romanian tiger cub I hear mewling for more milk?

(03-15-2016 01:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 12:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 12:43 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I know this, no amount of annual revenue will satisfy some FSU and Clemson fans, and no amount of revenue they could ever raise will be equal to what Texas, Ohio State, Penn State, or Bama can generate in a year. Coveting something that is a partial function of university enrollment and alumni size and university age is akin to wanting to be 6-8" when you are 5-11". Some variables are damn near fixed.

You keep using this smokescreen but it's just that...a smokescreen.

Clemson and FSU fans are fully aware that Alabama, Ohio State, etc. will always have a revenue advantage because of their huge donor base, but that's not a conference problem.

What is a conference problem is the money advantage that their conferences gives them compared to the ACC. When you can point out a post by any Clemson or FSU fan has complained about any revenue other than what the ACC distributes to it's membership then you might have a point but as it stands you don't. All you are doing is trying to muddy the water to make your precious ACC look better.

It's an issue that concerns a lot of people involved with the athletic programs at not just Clemson and FSU. I'm not talking about just message board posters but people who make the big decisions. If the ACC continues to ignore the problem like they have since the horrid contract was signed they are going to find themselves in a situation like the SoCon found themselves in 1953. Left behind wondering where things went wrong. Ironic that the issue the created the ACC could very well be the one that results in it's downfall.

Kap, the SEC and B10 DO NOT WANT YOU. YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT OPTION. Again you are complaining about something you can not have.

You were a few mental mistakes away from another title despite "ACC money". You charge reasonable prices for tickets and you don't milk you donors. An extra $8-$10-$15 million isn't going to do anything for you.

(03-15-2016 01:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Kap you make no money on basketball, never have. You need 12K-15K more seats at Memorial to compete with your SEC rivals, but where will they park and how long will it take to get into town, and then where will they spend the night?

Clemson is a small public school in a historically poor state. You want to leave for the B12 and compete against Texas' and OU's money - have at it. You can't even compete with T. Boone Picken's wallet. Your fundamental complaint is that the ACC sucks and while that may be true, what are your options?

The notion that the ACC would ignore the ESPN contract and that the ACC office and other AD's and assistants to the various chancellors and presidents are ignoring revenue is ludicrous. Even Duke and UVa hunt money.

The ACC has the most small schools of any P-5, always have, always will. None of that is new. The two central pillars of the ACC, UVa and UNC, could not put together a great football program if their life depended on it because the only way they can do it is to cheat like Hell. UVa has ALWAYS shied away from that, UNC tries ever could of decades and every couple of decades it blows up in their face.

When the contract was last open, Miami was in the toilet and no one knew what would come after Bowden. Clemson had not come out of your coma, and we had BC and WF carrying the league standard.

The ACC was not in a position of strength at that time.