http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._mayb.html


This model doesn't seem to make sense for the ACC.

Not really a fair article. The PAC Network is actually profitable NOW: they have just been sinking the profits back into the network, thus no distribution. And that's without several major clearances. They don't have a backer like the Big Ten or SEC do or like the ACC would, to invest in the network.

Most of the conference networks have yet to tap in to the cash cow (alcohol).

I can see a point coming where the conferences start moving marque games to their networks. If ESPN is paying the ACC $300 million/year (roughly), they have to be taking in twice that to show a reasonable profit. Even with production costs, that is a lot of money being left on the table.

(10-22-2013 01:13 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Most of the conference networks have yet to tap in to the cash cow (alcohol).

I can see a point coming where the conferences start moving marque games to their networks. If ESPN is paying the ACC $300 million/year (roughly), they have to be taking in twice that to show a reasonable profit. Even with production costs, that is a lot of money being left on the table.

I'm guessing the $300 million is coming from the existing ESPN Networks. That's only $20 million more than the ACC on a deal that's 8 years longer than the ACC's.

If so, SEC Network revenues will be in addition to the base revenue. The network will be built on games currently aired in the syndicated package, sublicensed to Fox and CSS, or sold directly by the individual schools, about 3 games per week. http://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameL...erence=SEC ESPN will front production costs and ESPN and the SEC will split the profits

I hope we don't have problems. Let's hope it's an SEC Network kind of output...

(10-22-2013 12:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really a fair article. The PAC Network is actually profitable NOW: they have just been sinking the profits back into the network, thus no distribution. And that's without several major clearances. They don't have a backer like the Big Ten or SEC do or like the ACC would, to invest in the network.

How would you fix the problem? What would you do if you were the Pac 12?

(10-22-2013 03:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 12:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really a fair article. The PAC Network is actually profitable NOW: they have just been sinking the profits back into the network, thus no distribution. And that's without several major clearances. They don't have a backer like the Big Ten or SEC do or like the ACC would, to invest in the network.

How would you fix the problem? What would you do if you were the Pac 12?

Expand!!! One problem that the P12 Network faces, as compared to the BTN and new SECN, is the lack of football inventory. They get basically 30-35 football games, a little more than 2 per week. If the B1G sells a package similar to its current ABC/ESPN package plus the CCG (about 40 games total), the BTN will have at least 55 football games and as many as 60 games. Fans may be willing to live with missing one or two games a year. They won't like missing four or five.

(10-22-2013 01:58 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 01:13 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Most of the conference networks have yet to tap in to the cash cow (alcohol).

I can see a point coming where the conferences start moving marque games to their networks. If ESPN is paying the ACC $300 million/year (roughly), they have to be taking in twice that to show a reasonable profit. Even with production costs, that is a lot of money being left on the table.

I'm guessing the $300 million is coming from the existing ESPN Networks. That's only $20 million more than the ACC on a deal that's 8 years longer than the ACC's.

If so, SEC Network revenues will be in addition to the base revenue. The network will be built on games currently aired in the syndicated package, sublicensed to Fox and CSS, or sold directly by the individual schools, about 3 games per week. http://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameL...erence=SEC ESPN will front production costs and ESPN and the SEC will split the profits

The $300 million was a reference to the current ACC contract and the article stating that Direct TV was balking at the P12 Network because it was all games/sports that had been rejected by the broadcast networks and ESPN. It seems like a catch-22. To get more cable/satellite coverage you need to move the big games to the conference network. When you do you loose the broadcast networks and probably some money.

(10-22-2013 03:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 12:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really a fair article. The PAC Network is actually profitable NOW: they have just been sinking the profits back into the network, thus no distribution. And that's without several major clearances. They don't have a backer like the Big Ten or SEC do or like the ACC would, to invest in the network.

How would you fix the problem? What would you do if you were the Pac 12?

They are 18 months in and show a profit. They are doing fine for now. But the issues they, the SEC, and the ACC will have is that you need BOTH sports to draw to thrive. The PAC and SEC will never draw with basketball. Can the ACC draw with football? If so, they will be fine. If not, they will also struggle. .

(10-22-2013 04:06 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 12:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really a fair article. The PAC Network is actually profitable NOW: they have just been sinking the profits back into the network, thus no distribution. And that's without several major clearances. They don't have a backer like the Big Ten or SEC do or like the ACC would, to invest in the network.

How would you fix the problem? What would you do if you were the Pac 12?

Expand!!! One problem that the P12 Network faces, as compared to the BTN and new SECN, is the lack of football inventory. They get basically 30-35 football games, a little more than 2 per week. If the B1G sells a package similar to its current ABC/ESPN package plus the CCG (about 40 games total), the BTN will have at least 55 football games and as many as 60 games. Fans may be willing to live with missing one or two games a year. They won't like missing four or five.

Realistically whom can the p-12 grab? Hawaii is too far and disjointed as a program, New Mexico is not quite ready (Hoops yes but FB has a ways to go) and Boise St doesn't fit the P-12 profile. I think New Mexico is most ready of the three but what about #14?

I think the P-12 just waits on the B12 to implode (if that happens).

(10-22-2013 08:48 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:06 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 03:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 12:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not really a fair article. The PAC Network is actually profitable NOW: they have just been sinking the profits back into the network, thus no distribution. And that's without several major clearances. They don't have a backer like the Big Ten or SEC do or like the ACC would, to invest in the network.

How would you fix the problem? What would you do if you were the Pac 12?

Expand!!! One problem that the P12 Network faces, as compared to the BTN and new SECN, is the lack of football inventory. They get basically 30-35 football games, a little more than 2 per week. If the B1G sells a package similar to its current ABC/ESPN package plus the CCG (about 40 games total), the BTN will have at least 55 football games and as many as 60 games. Fans may be willing to live with missing one or two games a year. They won't like missing four or five.

Realistically whom can the p-12 grab? Hawaii is too far and disjointed as a program, New Mexico is not quite ready (Hoops yes but FB has a ways to go) and Boise St doesn't fit the P-12 profile. I think New Mexico is most ready of the three but what about #14?

I think the P-12 just waits on the B12 to implode (if that happens).

It's not necessarily a referendum on whether a network can work. But it does show that you have to be very strategic with your planning.

The Pac made a blockbuster deal, but there have been very serious repercussions, chief of which is nobody is watching them play.

Because of the Fox side of their TV deal, they are having some of their better games shifted over to FS1. Those games aren't drawing flies. That's ok with Fox, because they are trying to build FS1, and that's how you do it. But is that good for the PAC?

Plus, because of that, they are faced with more night games than ever, which is not good for the conference exposure at all.

Then DirectTV can pull the ratings, and tell the PAC, "Sorry, one of your 3-4 best football games of the year pulled a 1.1 - what you are asking for is ridiculous." But the PAC can't give DTV a better deal without giving back on the carriage deals they've already struck.

It may all work out great years down the road, but right now what was hailed as a brilliant deal (including by me) has their TV outlets totally working at cross-purposes, at the expense of exposure during their best football season in memory.

And on top of it, it doesn't look like in the near future it's going to be worth much more than what the B12 or ACC is getting.

An ACC Network would be a totally different animal (like the SEC Network will be) with ESPN as a partner and everyone on the same page, and much more attractive basketball. But this is absolutely a lesson in being slow and cautious. A network may or may not be the best play.

(10-23-2013 08:59 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  An ACC Network would be a totally different animal (like the SEC Network will be) with ESPN as a partner and everyone on the same page, and much more attractive basketball. But this is absolutely a lesson in being slow and cautious. A network may or may not be the best play.

It's one of those cases where it will never happen, but the SEC and ACC could have built a super network that would have carried the entire eastern seaboard, and killed the Big Ten's chance at NYC and maybe even in Maryland, had they worked together. Conference networks need basketball, because no matter how much people tell you football "drives the bus," ANYONE involved with the Big Ten will tell you that Big Ten basketball built their network. Why? Because of how TV contracts are structured, and the static nature of football (teams rarely become good overnight in a way no one saw coming), the best games are still on national TV leaving the B10N carrying games no one really wants to watch save for their fans. You generally are left with your top tier teams playing FCS opponents and MAC schools and the middle and lower tier teams filling out the schedule. Cable stations in Columbus would not even buy it at first. The issue with basketball is, whereas fans of the top teams can not have the B10N and only most two games, ones they mostly don't care that much about anyway, with basketball you will miss half or more of the games. And in the Big Ten, those games draw too. Now the cable companies had problem, because while people were not switching to DirecTV for the games vs. Eastern Michigan and Youngstown State in football, they were switching over when they looked at missing 18 men's basketball games. So it matters.

Also, with basketball, you draw viewers to the network every night during the basketball season for games. And, unlike in football, you actually end up with basketball games that could be the marquee game of the night on any network, and draw in viewers (think of how many ACC games you have seen on the ACC Syndicated Network that were better than the games on ESPN that night?). Basketball builds the base of the network, and pays the bills. Then put football on top of it, which has less games but draws bigger viewership, and you get the profit.

Egos would never let it happen. But if the two had combined networks, to have the best of both worlds, I think they easily would have gotten a top tier fee compared to what either will get by themselves, and would spread the reach of to include just about everything East of the Mississippi (sans Ohio) and adding Texas. That would be basic cable carriage in close to 67 million households which would net (after ESPN takes 50%) each conference $200 million per year, before the first commercial is sold. That is $14 million per team per year on top of national TV contracts.