The problem that the ACC has is similar to the Pac 12, there isn't that perceived need for it. Carriers knew they had to get the SEC network- that folks down south would leave if they didn't get it. There isn't that same fanatisism involved with the ACC- definitely not on the same level at all as the SEC.

(08-05-2014 07:31 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wonder if you ACC guys copy and paste your conversations about this topic when you have the exact same conversations both here and on your ACC cheerleading forum? I bet many of you do.

So glad you guys are "encouraged" by such a simple statement as "ESPN and ACC Network talks are encouraging" for the ACC but perhaps you should look further into why that is becoming encouraging NOW. There is a connection.

Why does it matter? The ACC\ESPN negotiations were always going to be a bit muted until they knew how the SEC Network's carriage went. That was a given and well known.

Conference Network networks aren't a slam dunk. The LHN is an unmitigated failure for ESPN. The Mountain West's Cable network failed, and the Pac 12 network is still struggling with carriage. Eventually it will be a success though.

Failure? LHN is on virtually every carrier except Comcast and DirecTV. And there have been several reports that DirecTV will be on line for this season. You are two years out of date. Like the BTN, the LHN took a while to get carriage.

(08-05-2014 08:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 07:31 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wonder if you ACC guys copy and paste your conversations about this topic when you have the exact same conversations both here and on your ACC cheerleading forum? I bet many of you do.

So glad you guys are "encouraged" by such a simple statement as "ESPN and ACC Network talks are encouraging" for the ACC but perhaps you should look further into why that is becoming encouraging NOW. There is a connection.

Why does it matter? The ACC\ESPN negotiations were always going to be a bit muted until they knew how the SEC Network's carriage went. That was a given and well known.

Conference Network networks aren't a slam dunk. The LHN is an unmitigated failure for ESPN. The Mountain West's Cable network failed, and the Pac 12 network is still struggling with carriage. Eventually it will be a success though.

Failure? LHN is on virtually every carrier except Comcast and DirecTV. And there have been several reports that DirecTV will be on line for this season. You are two years out of date. Like the BTN, the LHN took a while to get carriage.

Re the LHN, ESPN and DirecTV are working on a comprehensive new deal. The SECN announcement is just the first piece. There are some reports that we could see a major announcement this week. There is no specific information about LHN being included, but it has to be on the table.

RE the ACCN, the problem is control of second tier rights by Raycom. Raycom owns many of the games that are needed for the network. The situation is far more tangled than the SEC's was.

think it's interesting that the DirecTV deal for the SEC network was a stand alone deal- and didn't have the LHN tied in with it at all.

(08-05-2014 07:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem that the ACC has is similar to the Pac 12, there isn't that perceived need for it. Carriers knew they had to get the SEC network- that folks down south would leave if they didn't get it. There isn't that same fanatisism involved with the ACC- definitely not on the same level at all as the SEC.

I have to disagree, for 4 reasons:

1) in general, people on the East coast follow college sports more than they do on the West coast.

2) the ACC has some (not all) rabid football fan groups - FSU, Clemson, Louisville and Va Tech in particular - which will demand an ACC Network in their states.

3) the ACC teams which don't have strong football followings generally do have very strong basketball followings - think UNC, Duke, Syracuse - which would push for carriage in those states.

4) the Pac-12 is trying to do everything themselves, and insisting on basic cable tier; the SEC Network (and any future ACC Network) would be handled by ESPN and would be willing to accept being on a sports tier - at least at first.

When you combine what the ACC does have with the distribution expertise that ESPN is now displaying with the SEC Network, I'm confident that an ACC Network would easily get carriage in every East-coast state if not the entire country.

(08-05-2014 08:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 07:31 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wonder if you ACC guys copy and paste your conversations about this topic when you have the exact same conversations both here and on your ACC cheerleading forum? I bet many of you do.

So glad you guys are "encouraged" by such a simple statement as "ESPN and ACC Network talks are encouraging" for the ACC but perhaps you should look further into why that is becoming encouraging NOW. There is a connection.

Why does it matter? The ACC\ESPN negotiations were always going to be a bit muted until they knew how the SEC Network's carriage went. That was a given and well known.

Conference Network networks aren't a slam dunk. The LHN is an unmitigated failure for ESPN. The Mountain West's Cable network failed, and the Pac 12 network is still struggling with carriage. Eventually it will be a success though.

Failure? LHN is on virtually every carrier except Comcast and DirecTV. And there have been several reports that DirecTV will be on line for this season. You are two years out of date. Like the BTN, the LHN took a while to get carriage.

I never watch the LHN and I think that's what the other poster meant by 'failure', it's ratings and viewership suck.

But obviously it is no failure for Texas, who collects $15m a year for it, and it does have widespread coverage.

Heck, in Baton Rouge there is no love lost for Texas, but unlike the BTN or PACN, the LHN is on the basic sports package tier with COX (by far the largest cable provider in town), you don't pay any more to get it than to get ESPN News/U/Classic.

(08-05-2014 08:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  think it's interesting that the DirecTV deal for the SEC network was a stand alone deal- and didn't have the LHN tied in with it at all.

As Orangefan says, ABC/Disney/ESPN is working on a comprehensive deal. I suspect they got this part done and went ahead and announced it. SEC fans are very passionate and ESPN has been running a big campaign to get people to demand the SEC network. All summer you saw the ads everywhere. Once DISH signed up they started advertising that they had it. DirecTV said they had agreed on price last week, so they decided for competitive reasons to go ahead and announce it.

Odds are LHN, WatchESPN and other ESPN services along with ABC/Disney get announced shortly. I've seen a couple articles saying LHN will be on DirecTV this season, but there's nothing firm yet.

(08-05-2014 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 08:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 07:31 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wonder if you ACC guys copy and paste your conversations about this topic when you have the exact same conversations both here and on your ACC cheerleading forum? I bet many of you do.

So glad you guys are "encouraged" by such a simple statement as "ESPN and ACC Network talks are encouraging" for the ACC but perhaps you should look further into why that is becoming encouraging NOW. There is a connection.

Why does it matter? The ACC\ESPN negotiations were always going to be a bit muted until they knew how the SEC Network's carriage went. That was a given and well known.

Conference Network networks aren't a slam dunk. The LHN is an unmitigated failure for ESPN. The Mountain West's Cable network failed, and the Pac 12 network is still struggling with carriage. Eventually it will be a success though.

Failure? LHN is on virtually every carrier except Comcast and DirecTV. And there have been several reports that DirecTV will be on line for this season. You are two years out of date. Like the BTN, the LHN took a while to get carriage.

I never watch the LHN and I think that's what the other poster meant by 'failure', it's ratings and viewership suck.

But obviously it is no failure for Texas, who collects $15m a year for it, and it does have widespread coverage.

Heck, in Baton Rouge there is no love lost for Texas, but unlike the BTN or PACN, the LHN is on the basic sports package tier with COX (by far the largest cable provider in town), you don't pay any more to get it than to get ESPN News/U/Classic.

BTN's ratings are pretty low too. As most likely will be the SEC Network. All of these get the bottom games. They will look like ESPNU and FS2 ratings.

(08-05-2014 08:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 07:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem that the ACC has is similar to the Pac 12, there isn't that perceived need for it. Carriers knew they had to get the SEC network- that folks down south would leave if they didn't get it. There isn't that same fanatisism involved with the ACC- definitely not on the same level at all as the SEC.

I have to disagree, for 4 reasons:

1) in general, people on the East coast follow college sports more than they do on the West coast.

2) the ACC has some (not all) rabid football fan groups - FSU, Clemson, Louisville and Va Tech in particular - which will demand an ACC Network in their states.

3) the ACC teams which don't have strong football followings generally do have very strong basketball followings - think UNC, Duke, Syracuse - which would push for carriage in those states.

4) the Pac-12 is trying to do everything themselves, and insisting on basic cable tier; the SEC Network (and any future ACC Network) would be handled by ESPN and would be willing to accept being on a sports tier - at least at first.

When you combine what the ACC does have with the distribution expertise that ESPN is now displaying with the SEC Network, I'm confident that an ACC Network would easily get carriage in every East-coast state if not the entire country.

Agree with most that, but disagree with being willing to be on a sports tier. They'll agree to being on a sports tier in out of market places, but there's not enough money to justify the work of creating the network (including getting all the rights back) unless it's on something more basic. The Big Ten was just as insistent as being on basic and I think only caved a little on that in the Philadelphia area as part of a wider deal (and even that I think was changed later).

(08-05-2014 05:54 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 12:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You ARE going to get an ACC Network. The fact that it is "encouraging" at this point is because Other talks are progressing, not ACC Network talks.

The SEC Network is getting quick success in contract negotiations. The 800lb Gorilla in the room is the prospect of The SEC Network in the State of Texas and what that does for Texas A&M. More importantly though, what does that do for The University of Texas and it's Longhorn Network? How about having Texas, Baylor and TCU all on an ACC Network that gets widespread access across the State of Texas? The ACC supports as many or more sports than any other conference in America, especially in comparison to the SEC. It may sound silly but those folks at Texas will probably brag that they have Lacrosse teams and The Aggies don't.

Seriously though, the success of the SEC Network and the demise of The Longhorn Network is huge in the overall big picture. That is some serious grease for the cogs in the Wheel of Progress.

I haven't heard of any plans to add more ACC teams - much less to add teams from Texas! However, I've read some of your other posts, and it seems like you are suggesting that the ACC will
* keep Notre Dame as a partial member w/ scheduling agreement for football.
* add Texas as a similar partial member / scheduling agreement (with some of those games airing on a new network)
* add TCU and Baylor as #15 and #16 (also adding inventory for a new network).

INTRIGUING (if highly speculative)

Of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that the Big XII will dissolve. If/when that happens, I wonder where you think WVU ends up? If the ACC had no room, and the Big Ten won't touch them, would the SEC take them in? I'm not so sure...

I could also see a WVU + Cincinnati as 15/16, along with the keystone - Texas as partial member - IF Texas would go for that (they may not).

ACC isn't getting Oklahoma, so if the Longhorns want closer ACC neighbors, your scenario may make the most sense.

WVU either SEC or ACC. It all would depend upon negotiating strength. Does Texas win out or does the ACC. I think the ACC would want WVU instead of one of the other Texas programs and I think Texas would want two Texas programs to go with them.

As to the SEC I think they would rather push into new territory with WVU.

For ACC 15 and 16 I think I'd like to see this:
#15 - Cincinnati
#16 - Navy (football-only); Georgetown (all but football)
Change the Notre Dame deal to 6 games per year (with the understanding that one of them is always Navy, so the Irish truthfully give up nothing).

WHY?
1) Notre Dame wants to play Navy every year; why not make that game part of the ACC Network (and/or ABC/ESPN) package? While I don't expect Navy to ever contend for an ACC football title, at least it gives the other teams another "W".
2) The ACC wants to get back into Maryland - Navy + Georgetown accomplishes that (perhaps better than UMd in some respects)
3) Cincinnati is the next team to move up, IMO - the ACC should grab it.
4) Notre Dame will have not problem with Cincinnati, since it is mostly Catholic: Hamilton County = 54.8%, State of Ohio = 43.7%

Of course, all of that leaves Texas and WVU out of the picture. For WVU, I really think it's SEC or bust. For Texas, I think the ACC would agree to a Notre-Dame-like deal, but not to taking 2 teams located thousands of miles away.

(08-05-2014 09:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  For ACC 15 and 16 I think I'd like to see this:
#15 - Cincinnati
#16 - Navy (football-only); Georgetown (all but football)
Change the Notre Dame deal to 6 games per year (with the understanding that one of them is always Navy, so the Irish truthfully give up nothing).

WHY?
1) Notre Dame wants to play Navy every year; why not make that game part of the ACC Network (and/or ABC/ESPN) package? While I don't expect Navy to ever contend for an ACC football title, at least it gives the other teams another "W".
2) The ACC wants to get back into Maryland - Navy + Georgetown accomplishes that (perhaps better than UMd in some respects)
3) Cincinnati is the next team to move up, IMO - the ACC should grab it.
4) Notre Dame will have not problem with Cincinnati, since it is mostly Catholic: Hamilton County = 54.8%, State of Ohio = 43.7%

Of course, all of that leaves Texas and WVU out of the picture. For WVU, I really think it's SEC or bust. For Texas, I think the ACC would agree to a Notre-Dame-like deal, but not to taking 2 teams located thousands of miles away.

I, Hokie Mark and the rest of the ACC fans, REALLY hate UCONN!

I see Cincinnati as a potential thorn in the B1G paw.
Ohio State has everything to lose with the ACC addition of Cincinnati.
For that reason alone, Cincinnati is a better option than UConn.

Please understand, I love UConn. Great location, tough teams in every sport.

If I had to chose between Cincinnati and UConn, it would have to be Cincinnati though.

(08-05-2014 09:40 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I, Hokie Mark and the rest of the ACC fans, REALLY hate UCONN!

Not at all. Hate requires emotional attachment; I have none. I wish UConn only the best in its attempts to join the Big Ten. I just don't want another ACC team in New England (if BC were to leave for some reason, that'd be different).

(08-05-2014 09:53 AM)Dasville Wrote:  I see Cincinnati as a potential thorn in the B1G paw.

That's part of the reason why I want them in the ACC.
(OK, a B1G part!)

(08-05-2014 10:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 09:40 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I, Hokie Mark and the rest of the ACC fans, REALLY hate UCONN!

Not at all. Hate requires emotional attachment; I have none. I wish UConn only the best in its attempts to join the Big Ten. I just don't want another ACC team in New England (if BC were to leave for some reason, that'd be different).

(08-05-2014 09:53 AM)Dasville Wrote:  I see Cincinnati as a potential thorn in the B1G paw.

That's part of the reason why I want them in the ACC.
(OK, a B1G part!)

Ditto! Absolutely perfect fit and great road trip to boot.

With the LHN now being widely distributed on basic & IF Texas would to join the ACC & IF ESPN could merge it with an ACC network, wouldn't the distribution pretty much already be half done?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(08-05-2014 12:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 11:50 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wonder if you ACC guys copy and paste your conversations about this topic when you have the exact same conversations both here and on your ACC cheerleading forum? I bet many of you do.

So glad you guys are "encouraged" by such a simple statement as "ESPN and ACC Network talks are encouraging" for the ACC but perhaps you should look further into why that is becoming encouraging NOW. There is a connection.

You ARE going to get an ACC Network. The fact that it is "encouraging" at this point is because Other talks are progressing, not ACC Network talks.

The SEC Network is getting quick success in contract negotiations. The 800lb Gorilla in the room is the prospect of The SEC Network in the State of Texas and what that does for Texas A&M. More importantly though, what does that do for The University of Texas and it's Longhorn Network? How about having Texas, Baylor and TCU all on an ACC Network that gets widespread access across the State of Texas? The ACC supports as many or more sports than any other conference in America, especially in comparison to the SEC. It may sound silly but those folks at Texas will probably brag that they have Lacrosse teams and The Aggies don't.

Seriously though, the success of the SEC Network and the demise of The Longhorn Network is huge in the overall big picture. That is some serious grease for the cogs in the Wheel of Progress.

I think the death of the LHN could be premature.
A question comes to mind.
Texas is obviously carrying the Big 12 (along with Oklahoma). What could make Oklahoma want to leave the Big 12?
Texas has no reason to leave the Big 12 unless Oklahoma does.

(08-05-2014 08:47 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 08:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  4) the Pac-12 is trying to do everything themselves, and insisting on basic cable tier; the SEC Network (and any future ACC Network) would be handled by ESPN and would be willing to accept being on a sports tier - at least at first.

Agree with most that, but disagree with being willing to be on a sports tier. They'll agree to being on a sports tier in out of market places, but there's not enough money to justify the work of creating the network (including getting all the rights back) unless it's on something more basic.

He said "sports tier," but I think he means they are okay with not being on the most "basic" tier. The SEC Network, on most systems, is on an expanded tier, similar to ESPNU or SyFy. The Big Ten was insistent on basic carriage. It will net them more subscribers, but also is why the SEC Network is rolling out faster. They were more accommodating.

(08-05-2014 08:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 07:31 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wonder if you ACC guys copy and paste your conversations about this topic when you have the exact same conversations both here and on your ACC cheerleading forum? I bet many of you do.

So glad you guys are "encouraged" by such a simple statement as "ESPN and ACC Network talks are encouraging" for the ACC but perhaps you should look further into why that is becoming encouraging NOW. There is a connection.

Why does it matter? The ACC\ESPN negotiations were always going to be a bit muted until they knew how the SEC Network's carriage went. That was a given and well known.

Conference Network networks aren't a slam dunk. The LHN is an unmitigated failure for ESPN. The Mountain West's Cable network failed, and the Pac 12 network is still struggling with carriage. Eventually it will be a success though.

Failure? LHN is on virtually every carrier except Comcast and DirecTV. And there have been several reports that DirecTV will be on line for this season. You are two years out of date. Like the BTN, the LHN took a while to get carriage.

(08-05-2014 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 08:01 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 07:31 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 10:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wonder if you ACC guys copy and paste your conversations about this topic when you have the exact same conversations both here and on your ACC cheerleading forum? I bet many of you do.

So glad you guys are "encouraged" by such a simple statement as "ESPN and ACC Network talks are encouraging" for the ACC but perhaps you should look further into why that is becoming encouraging NOW. There is a connection.

Why does it matter? The ACC\ESPN negotiations were always going to be a bit muted until they knew how the SEC Network's carriage went. That was a given and well known.

Conference Network networks aren't a slam dunk. The LHN is an unmitigated failure for ESPN. The Mountain West's Cable network failed, and the Pac 12 network is still struggling with carriage. Eventually it will be a success though.

Failure? LHN is on virtually every carrier except Comcast and DirecTV. And there have been several reports that DirecTV will be on line for this season. You are two years out of date. Like the BTN, the LHN took a while to get carriage.

I never watch the LHN and I think that's what the other poster meant by 'failure', it's ratings and viewership suck.

But obviously it is no failure for Texas, who collects $15m a year for it, and it does have widespread coverage.

Heck, in Baton Rouge there is no love lost for Texas, but unlike the BTN or PACN, the LHN is on the basic sports package tier with COX (by far the largest cable provider in town), you don't pay any more to get it than to get ESPN News/U/Classic.

Is the LHN on Direct TV? I have no idea. Just like the BTN, I will never watch it.

But my understanding is that it has widespread coverage and Texas is getting $15 million a year for it whether it fails or not, so I don't think it is a failure for either party.

(08-05-2014 09:38 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  For ACC 15 and 16 I think I'd like to see this:
#15 - Cincinnati
#16 - Navy (football-only); Georgetown (all but football)
Change the Notre Dame deal to 6 games per year (with the understanding that one of them is always Navy, so the Irish truthfully give up nothing).

WHY?
1) Notre Dame wants to play Navy every year; why not make that game part of the ACC Network (and/or ABC/ESPN) package? While I don't expect Navy to ever contend for an ACC football title, at least it gives the other teams another "W".
2) The ACC wants to get back into Maryland - Navy + Georgetown accomplishes that (perhaps better than UMd in some respects)
3) Cincinnati is the next team to move up, IMO - the ACC should grab it.
4) Notre Dame will have not problem with Cincinnati, since it is mostly Catholic: Hamilton County = 54.8%, State of Ohio = 43.7%

Of course, all of that leaves Texas and WVU out of the picture. For WVU, I really think it's SEC or bust. For Texas, I think the ACC would agree to a Notre-Dame-like deal, but not to taking 2 teams located thousands of miles away.

Sounds good, then shut down expansion for the ACC forever.