From the article:

Since readers often ask me, I asked Swofford for an update on discussions with ESPN on the feasibility of an ACC cable channel.

“They continue,” he said, “and that’s not something that we’ll necessarily give public updates on along the way. It’s something that’s going to take a while to develop and evolve in a solid manner with the right kind of foundation for the long term.”

As he often does, Swofford cited the Southeastern Conference Network, a partnership with ESPN that launches in August but was three-plus years in development. And since Swofford mentioned the SEC, I asked him if the SEC Network’s strained, 11th-hour negotiations with cable providers were a cautionary tale.

“There are challenges,” he said. “It’s not something you just decide to do, and you snap your finger, and it’s done and it’s successful. You generally have to be willing, if you go that route, to have some tough negotiations from a distribution standpoint. You may even have to be willing to back up a little financially to do what you think is the right thing long-term.

“While a channel provides 24/7 conference programming, a channel sometimes doesn’t have as great a distribution potentially as a syndicated package, if you really look at the numbers. And our syndicated package with the ACC Network is now national. It used to be regional.

Now parts that are question and answer:

Q: Seriously, are you confident that ACC revenue can keep member schools whole when competing nationally?

A: Absolutely. As part of the potential that’s there with this 15-member league and our footprint as we go forward. … I think this league, because of the quality of the membership, and the geographic footprint, will be set for the long-term (with) its ability to generate appropriate revenues.

Q: Part of the autonomy package is giving conferences the freedom to determine football championship-game participants as they see fit, with or without divisions. Let’s presume that passes — I don’t think anyone doubts that will eventually be approved. Could you imagine a time when the ACC scrapped divisions? And if so, how would you determine your championship game participants given scheduling imbalances and such?

A: Those are good questions. Start by saying that the fact that we, along with the Big 12, are proposing that doesn’t necessarily mean that we would change anything we’re doing right now. It would be easy to read into that. Well, they’ve already decided or they wouldn’t be pushing for this. That’s not the case. We feel like we should have the opportunity at the conference level, that every conference should have the opportunity to make that determination rather than it being made by the NCAA. Because the current legislation boxes you in.

Q: What about tinkering with the divisions? I think you should swap Louisville and Georgia Tech, but that’s neither here nor there.

A (Laughter) We talk about it periodically, but so far, the schools, they’re comfortable with where it is. And competitively, and these things can change, obviously, but so far it’s remarkable how balanced it has been. … I know some people look at it on paper sometimes and say, ‘Whoa, this division’s going to be much stronger than that division.’ Well, the reality of it is, it hasn’t turned out that way. You look at the SEC’s divisions historically. There was a time when the East was, when Florida and Tennessee and Georgia were all extraordinarily good. For a period of time, that division was much stronger. Now that’s changed. … You can’t just change your divisions because of competitive reasons for short periods of time.

But I don’t think you ever say never. But again, it takes the schools to bring that about and we periodically give them analysis of the competitiveness and what things would look like in a different way. That’s part of our role in the conference office, to continue that analysis and evaluation and provide it periodically to our schools so they can see if they want to make any adjustments in it. …

We’re 14 members now. We’re developing a little history with the new schools that are with us. So there may come a time when we decide to make some adjustments there, but I don’t see that as something imminent.

http://touch.dailypress.com/#section/-1/...-80654063/

Right, "these things take time." You're a conference with one of the biggest population pools, one of the biggest conferences in terms of membership, have one of the deepest leagues in various sports that other conferences can't even touch (soccer, lacrosse, and baseball?), and a historically strong women's athletics conference. There's content, and then there's leverage. The ACC's got it. All of it. I just wish they knew their way around a media deal.

(06-27-2014 10:59 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Right, "these things take time." You're a conference with one of the biggest population pools, one of the biggest conferences in terms of membership, have one of the deepest leagues in various sports that other conferences can't even touch (soccer, lacrosse, and baseball?), and a historically strong women's athletics conference. There's content, and then there's leverage. The ACC's got it. All of it. I just wish they knew their way around a media deal.

If you read between the lines, it's pretty clear things are moving forward.

THis time last year Swofford discussed the feasibility of a network, now he's hinting at financial costs, long-term planning etc, syndicated rights packages.

If a network wasn't happening, it would already have been decided.

It's moving forward but there's millions of dollars of negotiations involved.

There's a reason all of the new syndication over the air contracts by Syracuse and Louisville are set to end in the 2016 or 2017 time frame.

think someone brought it up a month or so ago- but we may see more visable progress on the ACC network when the Maryland situation is complete.

Speaking of that- I'm kind of surprised nothing has gotten done yet on that. Would have thought for sure it'd be finalized prior to June 30.

(06-27-2014 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  think someone brought it up a month or so ago- but we may see more visable progress on the ACC network when the Maryland situation is complete.

Speaking of that- I'm kind of surprised nothing has gotten done yet on that. Would have thought for sure it'd be finalized prior to June 30.

Good memory. I was one of the ones who brought up the Maryland angle. And you're right....the silence on the matter is deafening.

(06-27-2014 12:31 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  think someone brought it up a month or so ago- but we may see more visable progress on the ACC network when the Maryland situation is complete.

Speaking of that- I'm kind of surprised nothing has gotten done yet on that. Would have thought for sure it'd be finalized prior to June 30.

Good memory. I was one of the ones who brought up the Maryland angle. And you're right....the silence on the matter is deafening.

yep. If memory serves me right- every other conference move- had been finalized prior to move date with the prior conference

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/

Quote:* The Big Ten is the last conference to hold off releasing any telecast information for the early season, except for the two weeknight games during the opening week. Scott Dochtermann of the Cedar Falls Gazette reported a few interesting items this week:
•The conference is working with its TV partners, specifically ESPN it appears, to place games on ESPNEWS and ESPN Classic
•July 1st is the latest date that ESPN can pre-select a Big Ten game to air in primetime. It is also the latest date the network can make its selections for the early season.
•No side deals. No third parties.

The Big Ten was going to need help placing games early in the season, if they did not want to stack a ton of games on BTN. I have been told that ESPN has rights to a few more Big Ten games due to the increase in membership. Not sure how many though. ESPNEWS might be used only for a game or two so that the network can meet some of its requirements with other conferences. I would not expect ESPN Classic to be used as it is supposed to be ending as a 24/7 channel per the agreement made with Dish Network with Disney.




I think that is why the Navy at Temple game remains TBA in the American package. If ESPN is allowed to air a Big Ten game on ESPNEWS, it might push Navy-Temple to ESPN3.

(06-27-2014 12:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  think someone brought it up a month or so ago- but we may see more visable progress on the ACC network when the Maryland situation is complete.

Speaking of that- I'm kind of surprised nothing has gotten done yet on that. Would have thought for sure it'd be finalized prior to June 30.

Why are people surprised that no settlement has happened?

Litigation in state court is usually a fairly long, drawn out process.

This case might settle in mediation. Has a date even been scheduled?

Does anyone know?

It may not settle in mediation, which means that a discovery cutoff date and a deposition schedule must be established.

Does anyone know how many witnesses will be deposed? Will it take four months, six months or more?

How is the NC judge's docket?

Does it take a year or a year and a half (or more) from the date a trial date is requested (I don't think that one was requested by the lawyers yet) to get sufficient open dates for what may be a long trial?

In Louisiana, most courts will not even give you a trial date until you certify that all discovery is done and the case is completely ready to try.

Then, a trial date is set at a Pre-Trial Conference with the judge. At that point, even a week long jury trial cannot be booked earlier than a year out from the date of the Pre-Trial Conference since the trial docket is full until then.

Will the settlement, if it happens, occur right before that trial date? On the courthouse steps (I have been involved in those)?

(Some cases don't settle until after the jury is selected or even after the trial begins. I have been involved in those, too)

Why does anyone think that July 1st or any other date has any special meaning to the ACC, its lawyers and the judge, for instance?

I fail to see how people think that an ACC network will be easy to accomplish or that "knowing your away around a media agreement" helps anything

ESPN knows their way around one and what ESPN knows right now is THEY have all the leverage.....THEY have the long term agreement in place for all three tiers of media rights in place and THEY were generous to offer more money when they really did not have to for ND and they already had a deal in place....and those that bought those media rights have a great deal of leverage as well

the idea of "lookins" outside of the AAC that actually has one spelled out or more money for just adding teams has proven time and again to be dramatically over blown

and as of now ESPN owns those media rights......they have sold them off......they have been further sold off from there and the sales of those rights to others generated profits for those selling them and they have the anticipation of profits for those buying them

there is no incentive other than more profit offered for those that sold those rights off and those that bought those rights to relinquish them

some seem to pretend that well ESPN paid $100 dollars for these rights so it should cost $100 dollars to buy them back

when the reality is ESPN paid $100 dollars for those rights in anticipation of turning a profit on them and they did so partially by selling some of them off to A for $110 and A bought them for $110 in anticipation of turning a profit on them and they did so partially by selling some of them off to B for $120 and B paid $120 for them in anticipation of turning a profit on them

so to get those rights back you need to pay B $120 + their anticipated profit + a tad bit more an an incentive......then you need to figure out what A retained and what A turned a profit on when selling to B and compensate A for all of that and for any loss of profits from the deal with B being canceled + some incentive for doing the deal and then you need to figure out what ESPN retained and what profit they turned when they sold to A and you need to compensate them for that along with the loss of profits from the deal with A being canceled + incentive and then ESPN needs to see new additional profit incentive for actually setting up and running the network

some seem to pretend that ESPN is just willingly going to accept the premise that an ACC network will pay them more right off and they should just be out there paying basically what they sold the media rights for to get them back and that those that bought them and further subbed them out are just willingly looking to give them up for a few extra dollars

A and B that bought these rights from ESPN and then sold/bought then in a further subdivide are not just going to accept the lowest potential profits they might make for buying them and actually broadcasting them and ESPN is not just going to accept the idea that an ACC network means even more profits

A and B are going to walk away KNOWING they came out ahead and ESPN is going to come into starting a network KNOWING they were compensated well for getting those rights back and then they will look at the deal for a network

ESPN is not just going to do what it takes to get the rights back and then start talking about the network and potential profits and splits ect......that will come AFTER ESPN knows they are ahead on the potential profits of the ownership and partial sales of those 3rd tier rights

and when you start adding all of that potential profits and incentives to forgo those profits and to walk away from something that you OWN well people are going to aim very high and work down to still high.......after all what is the position of "leverage" for those looking to buy them back......."hey we think we can make even more money now if we get those rights back than what we made selling them to you"........that is pretty much a position of extreme weakness because of course the answer is "exactly that is why we bought these rights because we think we can do very well on them and we are not just going to give that up so start VERY HIGH and we will think about it"

wonder what cable companies that have classic will get to replace espn classic in digital basic tier

(06-27-2014 10:59 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Right, "these things take time." You're a conference with one of the biggest population pools, one of the biggest conferences in terms of membership, have one of the deepest leagues in various sports that other conferences can't even touch (soccer, lacrosse, and baseball?), and a historically strong women's athletics conference. There's content, and then there's leverage. The ACC's got it. All of it. I just wish they knew their way around a media deal.

Swofford's had only 8 years to catch up to the Big Network.