(01-15-2014 03:21 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  ESPN would have been subleasing those over the air games to Raycom whether the ACC asked for it or not. The business model at the time needed an over the air broadcaster and they did not want to use the same one doing the over the air SEC games (pre-cable channel SEC network).

Link?

I have never seen that anywhere other than posts on fan forums, probably because it would have never come up since the ACC was insistent from the get-go that Raycom had to be involved.

(01-15-2014 03:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 03:21 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  ESPN would have been subleasing those over the air games to Raycom whether the ACC asked for it or not. The business model at the time needed an over the air broadcaster and they did not want to use the same one doing the over the air SEC games (pre-cable channel SEC network).

Link?

I have never seen that anywhere other than posts on fan forums, probably because it would have never come up since the ACC was insistent from the get-go that Raycom had to be involved.

Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all. The SEC still had an over the air syndication package after dropping Raycom Sports.

ESPN has their own competitor to Raycom Sports called the ESPN Regional Networks. They do what Raycom Sports does, but with all the synergies of the ESPN empire (facilities, talent, production capabilities, etc).

Whatever money Raycom Sports makes on the ACC games, ESPN could be making, like they do with the SEC syndication package.

What would have happened is that Raycom Sports, which is a separate entity from Raycom, would have folded up shop. ESPN would have produced and monetized the games themselves, just like with the SEC, and done a deal with OTA networks in the markets. Those games may have even have ended up on Raycom stations, or they might not have.

But Raycom Sports would have gone away, because they don't serve a purpose in the marketplace anymore.

(01-15-2014 03:24 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  There is a reason why the SEC, Big XII, and Pac10 did not renew with Raycom. There is a reason why despite the long and storied history in televising sports since 1957 that Raycom Sports is a shell of it's former self and relies on the ACC for 80% of it's income. It's because the business model has failed. If Raycom Sports were a viable option the ACC wouldn't be the only major property they have.

Exactly. Orangefan is just uniformed, or underinformed on this point. Raycom just simply doesn't have the cash for rights like this, but here they are with ACC rights. Whether ESPN is the middle man or not, that's out of the ACC's pocket. It can't be any other way.

What is especially galling, is that more games are subleased to Raycom than they can even broadcast, meaning that Raycom in turn gets to sublease THEIR games to Fox, etc. I mean, come on. Even if it is a charity case to keep a presence on Raycom for old time's sake, you would think that would end with giving them games to run on their network. But no, they get games subleased at an artificially reduced rate, and THEN can sublease them to Fox or other outlets for presumably market value.

It sucks, and it's a mistake, and I bet Swofford knows that now. What's interesting is whether he is willing and able to call in his chips on Raycom Sports to get them to play ball on an ACC network. The way I see it, Raycom can play hardball and ride this sweetheart giveaway deal for the length of the contract and then fold up shop, give out the pink slips, and go home (because the ACC won't do it again I'm sure).

Or they can play ball, get a role the ACC Network, whether it's productions or marketing or digital content, and exist in some (reduced) capacity as an entity forever.

I'm fully aware of the challenges that an ACC Network would face because of the Raycom rights, but at the same time its a documented fact that Raycom Sports exists as an entity solely at the good graces of the ACC. They may be set for another decade, but their existence beyond that in any capacity is in the ACC's hands. Do they play ball?

Of course Raycom plays ball. Also remember that the Presidents and Chancellors had to approve this deal as well and Raycom was well entrenched politically with most of the old ACC members.

I suspect an ACC network will be mainly a three legged chair Notre Dame, UNC/Duke/Syracuse/Louisville basketball, and FSU/Miami/Clemson football.

The overlap between and ACC and SEC network is not as great as some think, because that physical overlap will be in Florida, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, and parts of Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

In the overlap areas, the SEC network has a distinct advantage in the Fall, but the ACC has the advantage in the Winter.

(01-15-2014 08:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I suspect an ACC network will be mainly a three legged chair Notre Dame, UNC/Duke/Syracuse/Louisville basketball, and FSU/Miami/Clemson football.

If you think Syracuse will vote with hoops then you are wrong. Syracuse knows football drives bus. Hoops is icing on the cake, a lot of icing in Syracuse' case, but icing nonetheless, not the cake. Syracuse will vote football first. Louisville is probably in the same boat.

I suggest you read CFB history and perhaps many of the older threads on this site. Simply because Syracuse suffered under GROB does not mean Syracuse is not a football minded school.

Over the next several years, we will all see the ACC become seriously football minded. I expect that ACC hoops will remain strong, but the focus will be on the gridiron.

He's not talking about voting. He's talking about what will drive interest in an ACC network.

(01-15-2014 09:19 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 08:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I suspect an ACC network will be mainly a three legged chair Notre Dame, UNC/Duke/Syracuse/Louisville basketball, and FSU/Miami/Clemson football.

If you think Syracuse will vote with hoops then you are wrong. Syracuse knows football drives bus. Hoops is icing on the cake, a lot of icing in Syracuse' case, but icing nonetheless, not the cake. Syracuse will vote football first. Louisville is probably in the same boat.

I suggest you read CFB history and perhaps many of the older threads on this site. Simply because Syracuse suffered under GROB does not mean Syracuse is not a football minded school.

Over the next several years, we will all see the ACC become seriously football minded. I expect that ACC hoops will remain strong, but the focus will be on the gridiron.

He means in terms of revenue. SU basketball makes a ton, as does UNC, Duke, and UL basketball. Similarly, FSU and Clemson make a ton in football. The same goes for ND at life. All three legs of the stool get great ratings and thus provide value. I don't think that he is calling Syracuse a basketball school.

(01-15-2014 09:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 09:19 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 08:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I suspect an ACC network will be mainly a three legged chair Notre Dame, UNC/Duke/Syracuse/Louisville basketball, and FSU/Miami/Clemson football.

If you think Syracuse will vote with hoops then you are wrong. Syracuse knows football drives bus. Hoops is icing on the cake, a lot of icing in Syracuse' case, but icing nonetheless, not the cake. Syracuse will vote football first. Louisville is probably in the same boat.

I suggest you read CFB history and perhaps many of the older threads on this site. Simply because Syracuse suffered under GROB does not mean Syracuse is not a football minded school.

Over the next several years, we will all see the ACC become seriously football minded. I expect that ACC hoops will remain strong, but the focus will be on the gridiron.

He means in terms of revenue. SU basketball makes a ton, as does UNC, Duke, and UL basketball. Similarly, FSU and Clemson make a ton in football. The same goes for ND at life. All three legs of the stool get great ratings and thus provide value. I don't think that he is calling Syracuse a basketball school.

Yes, network revenue. Syracuse basketball fans as well as Louisville, UNC and Duke basketball fans will pay for an ACC network to watch their schools basketball. NC State basketball fans will watch just to jeer UNC and Duke when NC State is not playing well.

While some ND fans are just ND football fans, many ND fans also have a cultural/religious affinity for ND and they are spread from Chicago to NYC to Boston.

Fans of FSU, Clemson, VT, and Miami football will pay to watch their teams play football.

This is the three-legged chair of the ACC. It's more complicated than the SEC or B10 - the SEC has one pillar - football with the exception of Kentucky basketball (I know UF and Arkansas and MSU are good, but folks watch UK) The B10 has a two-pronged approach with a monolithic school culture with the exception of NW and a football first base from PA to Nebraska.

It's the access to Notre Dame that makes an ACC network viable in areas like Chicago, Indiana, Michigan, and in the big cities of the NE. With all these networks, the key is having a hook to grab a subscriber. ND makes a great barb because they are like the Yankees in that some folks will pay money just root against them.

The Raycom Red Herring

Even if Swofford hadn’t brought up the idea of including Raycom, it’s likely that ESPN would still have been in search of a subcontractor to purchase regional ACC games. As the Business Journal pointed out, ESPN was already syndicating SEC regional games. Given that SEC and ACC markets often overlap, it made sense for ESPN “to use an outside company to syndicate ACC programming to avoid conflicts of interest that would go along with selling both conferences into the same market.” - See more at: http://www.accsports.com/articles/the-ra...CVkXg.dpuf

Cheers,
Neil

(01-16-2014 01:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The Raycom Red Herring

Even if Swofford hadn’t brought up the idea of including Raycom, it’s likely that ESPN would still have been in search of a subcontractor to purchase regional ACC games. As the Business Journal pointed out, ESPN was already syndicating SEC regional games. Given that SEC and ACC markets often overlap, it made sense for ESPN “to use an outside company to syndicate ACC programming to avoid conflicts of interest that would go along with selling both conferences into the same market.” - See more at: http://www.accsports.com/articles/the-ra...CVkXg.dpuf

Cheers,
Neil

A Jim Young article? You might as well have posted something XLance or Lumberpack posted as proof. Young is so far up Swofford's butt that Swofford often gets him to brush his back molars.


And since it's a hypothetical you also can't prove that ESPN wouldn't have decided to syndicate the games itself just like it did with the SEC.

(01-16-2014 08:11 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 01:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The Raycom Red Herring

Even if Swofford hadn’t brought up the idea of including Raycom, it’s likely that ESPN would still have been in search of a subcontractor to purchase regional ACC games. As the Business Journal pointed out, ESPN was already syndicating SEC regional games. Given that SEC and ACC markets often overlap, it made sense for ESPN “to use an outside company to syndicate ACC programming to avoid conflicts of interest that would go along with selling both conferences into the same market.” - See more at: http://www.accsports.com/articles/the-ra...CVkXg.dpuf

Cheers,
Neil

A Jim Young article? You might as well have posted something XLance or Lumberpack posted as proof. Young is so far up Swofford's butt that Swofford often gets him to brush his back molars.


And since it's a hypothetical you also can't prove that ESPN wouldn't have decided to syndicate the games itself just like it did with the SEC.

Thanks for the compliment

(01-15-2014 10:04 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  The other factor is how much the Raycom stipulation affected Fox's ability and willingness to compete and drive up the contract. I've always had the impression that the ACC didn't fully entertain Fox as a partner and give them a real opportunity to win the contract, which would have driven the price up. That said, thank God we were on ABC/ESPN this year and not Fox/FS1, as the ratings were abysmal.

Comcast drove the price up considerably when they bid on it, forcing ESPN to up their bid. So there was a secondary bidder. At the time, I don't think Fox had the infrastructure in place to seriously seek the ACC on top of their PAC 12 and Big 12 commitments.

I won't pretend to know the affect Raycom had on the price, but I do know ESPN getting their hands on the content Raycom used to have was a significant reason the rights went up so much (remember this was before the sports rights bubble).

(01-15-2014 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  There is a reason why the SEC, Big XII, and Pac10 did not renew with Raycom. There is a reason why despite the long and storied history in televising sports since 1957 that Raycom Sports is a shell of it's former self and relies on the ACC for 80% of it's income. It's because the business model has failed. If Raycom Sports were a viable option the ACC wouldn't be the only major property they have.

Not really an argument on either side of the debate, but the business model itself is not failed. ESPN makes a ton of money using just such a model with ESPN Plus games. It just works better in synergy with a larger company as an additional outlet for content as opposed to a stand alone operation.

Damnit.. I think I just proved your point.

There shouldn't be any exit fees. If a conference treats its members well, no one should want to leave. If you have to punish a school for leaving, perhaps it's because you can't keep members. Apparently, the ACC leadership is scared to death of losing FSU and Clemson - thus, the exit fee. Kind of like the old USSR - build a wall to keep them in.

If I'm correct, the SEC doesn't have an exit fee...and no one's leaving.

(01-16-2014 02:42 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  There shouldn't be any exit fees. If a conference treats its members well, no one should want to leave. If you have to punish a school for leaving, perhaps it's because you can't keep members. Apparently, the ACC leadership is scared to death of losing FSU and Clemson - thus, the exit fee. Kind of like the old USSR - build a wall to keep them in.

If I'm correct, the SEC doesn't have an exit fee...and no one's leaving.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if the B1G offered to take Mizzou. They're a much better fit there (especially if the Big XII would let Kansas take its rights to the B1G at the same time).

(01-16-2014 02:42 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  There shouldn't be any exit fees. If a conference treats its members well, no one should want to leave. If you have to punish a school for leaving, perhaps it's because you can't keep members. Apparently, the ACC leadership is scared to death of losing FSU and Clemson - thus, the exit fee. Kind of like the old USSR - build a wall to keep them in.

If I'm correct, the SEC doesn't have an exit fee...and no one's leaving.

Members leaving can cause severe damage to other programs in the league. As someone who follows the Big East, you should know that better than anyone.

The SEC is also the only league that doesn't have any kind of penalty for leaving.

personally I think someone should be thanking Jim Delaney for taking a wretched sports program off our hands and letting the conference add Louisville! MAJOR IMPROVEMENT

(01-16-2014 02:42 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  There shouldn't be any exit fees. If a conference treats its members well, no one should want to leave. If you have to punish a school for leaving, perhaps it's because you can't keep members. Apparently, the ACC leadership is scared to death of losing FSU and Clemson - thus, the exit fee. Kind of like the old USSR - build a wall to keep them in.

If I'm correct, the SEC doesn't have an exit fee...and no one's leaving.

If the SECN becomes reality, expect a GOR to be put in place. The B1G, Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC have exit fees and/or GORs.

(01-16-2014 02:42 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  There shouldn't be any exit fees. If a conference treats its members well, no one should want to leave. If you have to punish a school for leaving, perhaps it's because you can't keep members. Apparently, the ACC leadership is scared to death of losing FSU and Clemson - thus, the exit fee. Kind of like the old USSR - build a wall to keep them in.

If I'm correct, the SEC doesn't have an exit fee...and no one's leaving.

Wait -- so basically you're saying that if the Big XII invited Cincinnati, it would elect to remain in the AAC simply because its treated well...?