(01-16-2013 02:28 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 01:26 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 01:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 12:55 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 12:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Notre Dame has seriously been looking at this digital subscription model for its "Irish Network" in some type of partnership with NBC or on its own for some time now.

Jack Swarbrick brings it up in interviews every few months.

This is above my pay grade, but I wonder how this would work separately with ND a partial member of the ACC?

Can ND do this alone or will it partner with the ACC to do this? Nobody really knows what the ND/ACC deal is regarding this type of content, as far as I know.

Even if ND retains some or all of these rights, I bet that there is a big lobbying effort by the ACC going on for ND to bundle these rights with the ACC.

I know that it is coming for ND, one way or the other.. It is a project new and dear to Jack Swarbrick's heart.

Any potential ND network would be pretty much football content only, as the ACC owns the rights to everything else.

That is the thing. Are you sure? Has anyone seen the contract or has the details.

Swarbrick talks this thing up regularly, even recently since the ACC deal was announced.

NBC owns all the rights to ND's seven home and neutral site games. So, what football content?

Yes I am sure.

That's why we are getting the "honor" of getting the HD stuff from ESPN at Clemson. We were pretty much told if we didn't accept it the only way our baseball would see broadcast TV would be when we were visiting somewhere else.

Someone needs to tell Jack Swarbrick, then. He recently touted an all digital, subscription based "Irish Network" to big donors recently.

VT has a subscription based online video content site. Don't expect your online network to have any good basketball games on it. You will get second choice of baseball, soccer, and lacrosse on it.

(01-16-2013 03:52 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 02:28 PM)TerryD Wrote:  ...Swarbrick talks this thing up regularly, even recently since the ACC deal was announced.

...He recently touted an all digital, subscription based "Irish Network" to big donors recently.

VT has a subscription based online video content site. Don't expect your online network to have any good basketball games on it. You will get second choice of baseball, soccer, and lacrosse on it.

Yeah, if/when the ACC Network is monetized, expect that content to go onto the common network as well (much like the Pac-12 schools had to pull back their internet content for the sake of the Pac-12 Network).

Okay more info from the Syracuse Mole

Disclaimer: If you think it is BS that is fine...it is thrown out there for discussion. As you can tell this stuff is an evolving concept.

Original Post and followup comments here

This is going to be somewhat long and tedious....Summarizing there is a lot going on in the media world of the ACC. Some of it begs the question why no TV network and why hasn't the ACC moved quicker to compete with BTN etc.

If you go back to my December 19th thread titled: Given Go-Ahead: ACC-ESPN are a Chanukah and Christmas wrapping part of the post stated:
"To program the digital platform, ESPN has begun striking content deals with ACC schools for some basketball and third-tier broadcast rights. To date, North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia Tech are on board, with a source at ESPN saying that more announcements are on the way.
The agreements offer an increased amount of content for fans and obvious recruiting advantages for the schools....think Tier 2 and Tier 3.

“We felt this gave us a great opportunity to broadcast some of our Olympic sports that wouldn’t otherwise be broadcast,” says Bubba Cunningham, athletics director at the University of North Carolina. “So we thought the investment that we could make and the investment that they were willing to make was very beneficial to the both of us.”

LINK: http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2012/11...ge-sports/

And as sample of where the ESPNU partnership with ACC has gone note the following links:

http://video.theacc.com/

http://www.youtube.com/user/ACCDigitalNetwork

What does all this auger for the ACC--movement is progressing toward the ACC and ESPN to form a network that will provide ACC content to an ACC network One of the strategies and tactic is to develop and execute ESPN/ACC on the same tier as ESPNU (what's big here is that ACC contract is FULLYwith ESPN and an ESPNU/ACC network monetizes Tier 1 even higher --so ESPN is not going to let the FOX/B1G network or NBCSports or CBSSports dwarf its domain.

So from there, and I highly recommend the first link on sportsvideo above, we are potentially moving in the following direction with the reasons some of you already know;

•Cable TV is expensive and there is a movement to have cable TV provided ala carte..that is you pay for what you really want not what the cable carrier gives you
Remember the above and move to BTN...is based on cable carriage and belief that it will get $.80 per cable household in its footprint and $.10 outside of footprint.

•Unlike ACC which has a flat rate quarrantee for its TV contract with ESPN so it takes no risk, the BTN takes a risk but keeps 51% of dollars generated and 49% to Fox (for production and distribution). In effect it cut out ESPN completely. As an example if 20mm households in Maryland and New Jersey and 80% have cable with BTN is on it...that delivers 16mm hsholds at $.80/household per month x 12 or $153,600,000---that is what Rutgers and Maryland could deliver to the BTN and why they were the universities chosen...BTN gets 51% or $78,336,000 a year.

•So why hasn't the ACC followed suit. Well its because of the first bullet point above...plus the fact that the ACC has not previously wanted the upfront financing of the Network nor the risk of not knowing what it may get paid.

•So where has the ACC been placing its efforts and dollars....in digital. Now before you start to jump at the stupidity think of Hulu and Netflix. Think of Gillette and any other company that charges a monthly subscription for their product. Think of ESPN3 becoming very much an ACC channel....think of very first bullet point above...in fact, there is the likelihood of an ACC channel like ESPN3 that charges a monthly fee for everything ACC...streaming via internet to computers, to cell phones, to U-Tube...does not have a cable company as an expense....in fact the subscriptions can go directly to the ACC and to its universities.

•Let's say the monthly subscription fee is $7.95 for a high quality like TV broadcast. The ACC would need only 1/10 BTN viewers to make as much money....and if ACC produced some content on own without ESPN it keeps all the dollars without sharing with anyone........

The point being is that the ACC and ESPN are working on this business model. As Forbes recently indicated, the ACC is the third ranked valued conference today (see thread posted by Bees today) without the above. So the ACC will still have TV games etc...but a BTN like network is NOT THE only way to go.....think about it.

Gee, it would've been decent of the "mole" to at least give me SOME credit.
Rx: ACC and ESPN - what now? (posted today 12:10 PM - 3 hours before the mole modified his post

(01-16-2013 04:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Gee, it would've been decent of the "mole" to at least give me SOME credit.
Rx: ACC and ESPN - what now? (posted today 12:10 PM - 3 hours before the mole modified his post

(01-16-2013 04:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Gee, it would've been decent of the "mole" to at least give me SOME credit.
Rx: ACC and ESPN - what now? (posted today 12:10 PM - 3 hours before the mole modified his post

From what I understand, the SEC leaves a lot off the table for individual teams to sell. That is good for teams like Alabama and Florida, because they get to keep the fruits of their labors, but it is bad for teams like 'Ole Miss and MSU, because they aren't carried by 'Bama and UF as much as they otherwise would be. I think that if you were to look at total madia payouts (as opposed to conference media payouts), you would see the SEC jump ahead again.

How many million homes is the BTN in? It's in a lot. I don't see tens of millions of people buying an $8/month package to watch tennis and swimming on their computer.

(01-16-2013 09:13 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How many million homes is the BTN in? It's in a lot. I don't see tens of millions of people buying an $8/month package to watch tennis and swimming on their computer.

I agree 100%.

However, I think tens of millions of people would pay $8/month to watch 14 football games, 48 basketball games, 24 baseball games, AND tennis and swimming.

(01-16-2013 09:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 09:13 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How many million homes is the BTN in? It's in a lot. I don't see tens of millions of people buying an $8/month package to watch tennis and swimming on their computer.

I agree 100%.

However, I think tens of millions of people would pay $8/month to watch 14 football games, 48 basketball games, 24 baseball games, AND tennis and swimming.

Thing is we don't own the rights to 14 football and 48 basketball games, and ESPN has the first right of refusal for everything else. Do you honestly think ESPN is going to hand the rights over for nothing? There is going to be a significant up front cost to regain the rights that we never should have given away in the first place. Even is ESPN is a partner in this venture with us, what incentive do they have to give us anything to make money on something they already control?

(01-16-2013 09:13 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How many million homes is the BTN in? It's in a lot. I don't see tens of millions of people buying an $8/month package to watch tennis and swimming on their computer.

Three words: women's beach volleyball

(01-16-2013 09:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 09:13 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How many million homes is the BTN in? It's in a lot. I don't see tens of millions of people buying an $8/month package to watch tennis and swimming on their computer.

I agree 100%.

However, I think tens of millions of people would pay $8/month to watch 14 football games, 48 basketball games, 24 baseball games, AND tennis and swimming.

As catdaddy said, the ACC doesn't own those games. But besides that, my school would likely only make up about 1/14 or 1/15 of all content. I'm not paying money to watch UNC vs WFU football or BC vs Cuse baseball (joke), or any school play lacrosse, and so on.

(01-16-2013 09:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 09:13 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How many million homes is the BTN in? It's in a lot. I don't see tens of millions of people buying an $8/month package to watch tennis and swimming on their computer.

Three words: women's beach volleyball

Thing is, only FSU participates in the sport and it's not an ACC sport. I'd have to think FSU would retain any and all rights to the sport unless the ACC wanted to pay FSU more than everyone else to purchase that content.

If ESPN put all current ACC content from ESPN3.com onto the ACCDN (about 2 football games plus several other events per team), and if I could subscribe for $8 monthly instead of paying the full $96 yearly... in that case I would definitely subscribe at least 1/2 of the year. Bump it up to include more football & basketball (plus the Spring games) and I'd probably subscribe for the whole year. All they would need is about 1.5 million subscribers TOTAL.

1.5 M X $96/year = $144 M
$144 M / 14 teams = $10.3 M per team per year
add that to the estimated $19.5M/yr ACC already get and you're up to $29.8M/yr

1.5 M subscribers out of a conference footprint of about 150 million is only 1% - that's nothing!

Marge...they are planning to send out multiple feeds...so even if there were 3 competing games at the same time...you could get your game. My understanding is the ACC doesn't own things like coaches shows, maybe old replays not on ESPN, nonrevenue sports...

Also, ESPN is motivated not to send ACC teams running off to the B1G or B12. And they don't want teams leaving for the SEC...which might cause a chain reaction of other teams leaving to the B1G or B12.

(01-16-2013 10:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 09:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Three words: women's beach volleyball

Thing is, only FSU participates in the sport and it's not an ACC sport. I'd have to think FSU would retain any and all rights to the sport unless the ACC wanted to pay FSU more than everyone else to purchase that content.

I think you missed the humor.

(01-16-2013 09:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-16-2013 09:13 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  How many million homes is the BTN in? It's in a lot. I don't see tens of millions of people buying an $8/month package to watch tennis and swimming on their computer.

I agree 100%.

However, I think tens of millions of people would pay $8/month to watch 14 football games, 48 basketball games, 24 baseball games, AND tennis and swimming.

I would pay eight bucks a month to watch the ND stuff. I would not watch the rest of it.

It is similar to what I have done for years with DirecTV. I pay for the MLB and NFL packages but only watch Pittsburgh Pirates and Pittsburgh Steelers games.

(01-16-2013 10:44 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Marge...they are planning to send out multiple feeds...so even if there were 3 competing games at the same time...you could get your game. My understanding is the ACC doesn't own things like coaches shows, maybe old replays not on ESPN, nonrevenue sports...

Also, ESPN is motivated not to send ACC teams running off to the B1G or B12. And they don't want teams leaving for the SEC...which might cause a chain reaction of other teams leaving to the B1G or B12.

The multiple feeds really makes very little difference to me. No matter if they split the conference in to halves or thirds, I'm rarely going to watch games that don't involve my school. I sure as hell don't want to pay to watch it online.

ESPN has always had motivation to not let the ACC die. Who cares? The ACC is still the least respected of the big "5" conferences and arguably the lowest paid.

(01-16-2013 10:33 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If ESPN put all current ACC content from ESPN3.com onto the ACCDN (about 2 football games plus several other events per team), and if I could subscribe for $8 monthly instead of paying the full $96 yearly... in that case I would definitely subscribe at least 1/2 of the year. Bump it up to include more football & basketball (plus the Spring games) and I'd probably subscribe for the whole year. All they would need is about 1.5 million subscribers TOTAL.

1.5 M X $96/year = $144 M
$144 M / 14 teams = $10.3 M per team per year
add that to the estimated $19.5M/yr ACC already get and you're up to $29.8M/yr

1.5 M subscribers out of a conference footprint of about 150 million is only 1% - that's nothing!

Well, first of all, the ACC wouldn't be getting all of that money. Not even close. ESPN would obviously get some and I'd imagine they'd end up getting the majority considering they already own the content.

So if it's a 60/40 split, which is more than fair on ESPN's end, that'd be an additional $4M/school/year.

Secondly, that ACC footprint figure... We all know the ACC's has serious competition within its footprint.

ESPN has always had motivation to not let the ACC die. Who cares? The ACC is still the least respected of the big "5" conferences and arguably the lowest paid.

From the outside looking in, I always thought this could be rectified if clemson and fsu would quit laying eggs.

(01-18-2013 11:55 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  ESPN has always had motivation to not let the ACC die. Who cares? The ACC is still the least respected of the big "5" conferences and arguably the lowest paid.

From the outside looking in, I always thought this could be rectified if clemson and fsu would quit laying eggs.

From the inside view, I see 10 other conference programs that share just as much responsibility to field championship level football as Clemson and FSU. Every conference out there has teams that step up and fill the void when the supposed big dogs have some down years. Not the ACC, no way. From the way posters talk in here there are a bunch of teams who would rather sit back and let Clemson and FSU do all the heavy lifting while they reap the benefits.


The really sad thing is out of the 3 new teams coming in, the only one that doesn't look they will fit right in with the "let' sit back and let them do all the work" crowd is Louisville. Considering the fact that you and other posters from both the Pitt and Syracuse fanbase like to say "Clemson and FSU shouldn't have stunk" I would imagine y'all were more than happy to sit back in the Big East while WVU, Louisville, and Cincy did the heavy lifting for you.

(01-18-2013 02:07 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(01-18-2013 11:55 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  ESPN has always had motivation to not let the ACC die. Who cares? The ACC is still the least respected of the big "5" conferences and arguably the lowest paid.

From the outside looking in, I always thought this could be rectified if clemson and fsu would quit laying eggs.

From the inside view, I see 10 other conference programs that share just as much responsibility to field championship level football as Clemson and FSU. Every conference out there has teams that step up and fill the void when the supposed big dogs have some down years. Not the ACC, no way. From the way posters talk in here there are a bunch of teams who would rather sit back and let Clemson and FSU do all the heavy lifting while they reap the benefits.


The really sad thing is out of the 3 new teams coming in, the only one that doesn't look they will fit right in with the "let' sit back and let them do all the work" crowd is Louisville. Considering the fact that you and other posters from both the Pitt and Syracuse fanbase like to say "Clemson and FSU shouldn't have stunk" I would imagine y'all were more than happy to sit back in the Big East while WVU, Louisville, and Cincy did the heavy lifting for you.

FYI, Virginia Tech is in the ACC.

Virginia Tech did a great job winning ACC games, but consistently stepped on their own crank OOC and in BCS bowls.