From the article he speaks like it is a Foregone Conclusion it is going to happen/done...we shall see:

“When a conference has its own channel there’s more opportunity for non-live programing that is building a perception of the league and getting the facts of what your league has accomplished on a more regular and ongoing basis,” Swofford said. “That’s one of the appeals of going the channel route and why we have an interest in fully evaluating that as we move forward in terms of what’s next.”


http://seminolepost.blog.palmbeachpost.c...ederated=1

(05-14-2015 08:55 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article he speaks like it is a Foregone Conclusion it is going to happen/done...we shall see:

“When a conference has its own channel there’s more opportunity for non-live programing that is building a perception of the league and getting the facts of what your league has accomplished on a more regular and ongoing basis,” Swofford said. “That’s one of the appeals of going the channel route and why we have an interest in fully evaluating that as we move forward in terms of what’s next.”


http://seminolepost.blog.palmbeachpost.c...ederated=1

If you want a good drinking game, the next time you hear Swofford interviewed on the radio, on TV or see him interviewed in print, just chug every time you hear him say "moving forward". He said it frequently when I was listening to him on the radio one day.

"That’s one of the appeals of going the channel route and why we have an interest in fully evaluating that as we move forward..."

The ACC has been fully evaluating a network channel for about 3 years nows. I really don't see how a network launch is a foregone conclusion - especially based on Swofford's comments.

(05-14-2015 09:16 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  "That’s one of the appeals of going the channel route and why we have an interest in fully evaluating that as we move forward..."

The ACC has been fully evaluating a network channel for about 3 years nows. I really don't see how a network launch is a foregone conclusion - especially based on Swofford's comments.

Usually he is pretty cautious with his statements to the public and plays everything close to the vest...this really wasn't the case in this statement in my opinion

Each P4 conference will have its own content development studio. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I really hope the ACC gets paid by ESPN every time they vaguely mention having a network. ESPN *has* to be making a killing off of it, and if the conference had any foresight, we could pretty much mint money.

(05-14-2015 09:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I really hope the ACC gets paid by ESPN every time they vaguely mention having a network. ESPN *has* to be making a killing off of it, and if the conference had any foresight, we could pretty much mint money.

We are still in a wait and see...my hope is it will be done by the 2017-2018 College Year.

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I really hope the ACC gets paid by ESPN every time they vaguely mention having a network. ESPN *has* to be making a killing off of it, and if the conference had any foresight, we could pretty much mint money.

We are still in a wait and see...my hope is it will be done by the 2017-2018 College Year.

Seems to get pushed farther and farther out.

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I really hope the ACC gets paid by ESPN every time they vaguely mention having a network. ESPN *has* to be making a killing off of it, and if the conference had any foresight, we could pretty much mint money.

We are still in a wait and see...my hope is it will be done by the 2017-2018 College Year.

It's good for advertising the conference, it's good for internships (I would imagine), and it's good for convincing ESPN to make long-term investments into the conference (but this shouldn't matter too much, given their current rights). Other than that, I generally don't care. Even with those reasons, I don't care very much. Other than change our risk profile, I really doubt that it will make a massive impact.

(05-14-2015 10:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I really hope the ACC gets paid by ESPN every time they vaguely mention having a network. ESPN *has* to be making a killing off of it, and if the conference had any foresight, we could pretty much mint money.

We are still in a wait and see...my hope is it will be done by the 2017-2018 College Year.

It's good for advertising the conference, it's good for internships (I would imagine), and it's good for convincing ESPN to make long-term investments into the conference (but this shouldn't matter too much, given their current rights). Other than that, I generally don't care. Even with those reasons, I don't care very much. Other than change our risk profile, I really doubt that it will make a massive impact.

ESPN doesn't have much of an incentive to give the ACC a network. They have the ACC under lock and key all the way out to 2027, a full twelve years from now, and at a pittance rate of about $17 million per school, per year.

That is a massive bargain, and ESPN didn't get rich by giving away these kinds of gains. Even the SEC had to get squeezed by the balls to get its network, and the money it is getting from that network isn't nearly as much as they'd be getting had they not signed their 2008 deal.

The ACC will get a network sometimes around 2022 or 2023, when the end of the ESPN contract gets close enough for ESPN to seriously consider locking them up for more years.

(05-14-2015 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I really hope the ACC gets paid by ESPN every time they vaguely mention having a network. ESPN *has* to be making a killing off of it, and if the conference had any foresight, we could pretty much mint money.

We are still in a wait and see...my hope is it will be done by the 2017-2018 College Year.

It's good for advertising the conference, it's good for internships (I would imagine), and it's good for convincing ESPN to make long-term investments into the conference (but this shouldn't matter too much, given their current rights). Other than that, I generally don't care. Even with those reasons, I don't care very much. Other than change our risk profile, I really doubt that it will make a massive impact.

ESPN doesn't have much of an incentive to give the ACC a contract. They have the ACC under lock and key all the way out to 2027, a full twelve years from now, and at a pittance rate of about $17 million per school, per year.

That is a massive bargain, and ESPN didn't get rich by giving away these kinds of gains. Even the SEC had to get squeezed by the balls to get its network, and the money it is getting from that network isn't nearly as much as they'd be getting had they not signed their 2008 deal.

The ACC will get a network sometimes around 2022 or 2023, when the end of the ESPN contract gets close enough for ESPN to seriously consider locking them up for more years.

Maybe FOX will give the ACC a network, then. Perhaps it will only have TII & TIII rights content, but a network nonetheless.

Seems to work well for the B1G. Big games on ESPN & ABC. The rest on the BTN.

(05-14-2015 10:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:40 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I really hope the ACC gets paid by ESPN every time they vaguely mention having a network. ESPN *has* to be making a killing off of it, and if the conference had any foresight, we could pretty much mint money.

We are still in a wait and see...my hope is it will be done by the 2017-2018 College Year.

It's good for advertising the conference, it's good for internships (I would imagine), and it's good for convincing ESPN to make long-term investments into the conference (but this shouldn't matter too much, given their current rights). Other than that, I generally don't care. Even with those reasons, I don't care very much. Other than change our risk profile, I really doubt that it will make a massive impact.

ESPN doesn't have much of an incentive to give the ACC a contract. They have the ACC under lock and key all the way out to 2027, a full twelve years from now, and at a pittance rate of about $17 million per school, per year.

That is a massive bargain, and ESPN didn't get rich by giving away these kinds of gains. Even the SEC had to get squeezed by the balls to get its network, and the money it is getting from that network isn't nearly as much as they'd be getting had they not signed their 2008 deal.

The ACC will get a network sometimes around 2022 or 2023, when the end of the ESPN contract gets close enough for ESPN to seriously consider locking them up for more years.

Maybe FOX will give the ACC a network, then. Perhaps it will only have TII & TIII rights content, but a network nonetheless.

Seems to work well for the B1G. Big games on ESPN & ABC. The rest on the BTN.

The BTN was really well timed. Even if we get content from Fox or whoever owns it and partner with ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc., I question what the value add will be. I think that there will be one. Don't get me wrong. I just don't think that it will be anywhere close to as big as many on here believe.

(05-14-2015 10:58 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  We are still in a wait and see...my hope is it will be done by the 2017-2018 College Year.

It's good for advertising the conference, it's good for internships (I would imagine), and it's good for convincing ESPN to make long-term investments into the conference (but this shouldn't matter too much, given their current rights). Other than that, I generally don't care. Even with those reasons, I don't care very much. Other than change our risk profile, I really doubt that it will make a massive impact.

ESPN doesn't have much of an incentive to give the ACC a contract. They have the ACC under lock and key all the way out to 2027, a full twelve years from now, and at a pittance rate of about $17 million per school, per year.

That is a massive bargain, and ESPN didn't get rich by giving away these kinds of gains. Even the SEC had to get squeezed by the balls to get its network, and the money it is getting from that network isn't nearly as much as they'd be getting had they not signed their 2008 deal.

The ACC will get a network sometimes around 2022 or 2023, when the end of the ESPN contract gets close enough for ESPN to seriously consider locking them up for more years.

Maybe FOX will give the ACC a network, then. Perhaps it will only have TII & TIII rights content, but a network nonetheless.

Seems to work well for the B1G. Big games on ESPN & ABC. The rest on the BTN.

The BTN was really well timed. Even if we get content from Fox or whoever owns it and partner with ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc., I question what the value add will be. I think that there will be one. Don't get me wrong. I just don't think that it will be anywhere close to as big as many on here believe.

The BTN doesn't add value for the B1G?

(05-14-2015 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:58 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  It's good for advertising the conference, it's good for internships (I would imagine), and it's good for convincing ESPN to make long-term investments into the conference (but this shouldn't matter too much, given their current rights). Other than that, I generally don't care. Even with those reasons, I don't care very much. Other than change our risk profile, I really doubt that it will make a massive impact.

ESPN doesn't have much of an incentive to give the ACC a contract. They have the ACC under lock and key all the way out to 2027, a full twelve years from now, and at a pittance rate of about $17 million per school, per year.

That is a massive bargain, and ESPN didn't get rich by giving away these kinds of gains. Even the SEC had to get squeezed by the balls to get its network, and the money it is getting from that network isn't nearly as much as they'd be getting had they not signed their 2008 deal.

The ACC will get a network sometimes around 2022 or 2023, when the end of the ESPN contract gets close enough for ESPN to seriously consider locking them up for more years.

Maybe FOX will give the ACC a network, then. Perhaps it will only have TII & TIII rights content, but a network nonetheless.

Seems to work well for the B1G. Big games on ESPN & ABC. The rest on the BTN.

The BTN was really well timed. Even if we get content from Fox or whoever owns it and partner with ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc., I question what the value add will be. I think that there will be one. Don't get me wrong. I just don't think that it will be anywhere close to as big as many on here believe.

The BTN doesn't add value for the B1G?

It's hard to say. I think that it probably does, but it's value is likely incredibly overstated by many. Who knows what the B1G could get if they sold their content to NBC/ESPN/FOX? It probably comes close to netting out once you take into account the increased risk from having the network and once the startup costs are accounted for.

To clarify the last sentence:
Risky investments are less desirable so the market compensates for that by driving the relative price down and thus the expected return on investment up (see the CAPM model). Since owning a channel is more risky than selling content on contract to a channel owner, I would expect the channel to make more. I just wouldn't necessarily expect it to make more given it's risk profile. That's especially true given the high startup costs. Obviously spending money at time zero is more expensive than spending that same amount of money at time 0+X, where X is positive. As such, once you factor in the initial startup costs, the NPV of the B1G when it was launched shrinks dramatically.

(05-14-2015 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:58 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  The BTN was really well timed. Even if we get content from Fox or whoever owns it and partner with ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc., I question what the value add will be. I think that there will be one. Don't get me wrong. I just don't think that it will be anywhere close to as big as many on here believe.

The BTN doesn't add value for the B1G?

I don't think that's what he's saying. The ACC has all of it game rights tied up with ESPN, some of which are sublicensed to Raycom and the Fox RSNs. To provide programming for an ACCN, these games might need to be bought back. Alternatively, ESPN could contribute its ESPNU and ESPN3 inventory. In either case, how does the ACC justify getting paid more for games that ESPN/Raycom/Fox already own?

In the case of the SECN, the SEC did three things. First, the did not renegotiate additional rights fees for the addition of TAMU and Mizzou right away. Those were negotiated as part of the creation of the SECN. Second, the SEC extended its deal with ESPN until 2034. Finally, the SEC bought back some tier 3 rights that had been sold by the individual schools (1 fb game per season per school) and offered them to ESPN for the SECN. These all allowed the SEC to give ESPN "more value," which justified the additional payments to the SEC.

The ACC has already been paid by ESPN for the additions of SU, Pitt and ND and for its extension to 2027. Thus, the ACC's opportunity to add value is far more limited than the SEC's was. The ACC could buy back the Raycom or Fox rights and reoffer them to ESPN, probably more expensive than SEC's repurchase of certain tier 3 games. The ACC could also further extend its rights deal with ESPN past 2027.

When the BTN was formed, the B1G withheld enough games to provide programming for the BTN (as the P12 did when they formed their network). I think that this the timing and the value to which the prior post is referring.

(05-14-2015 11:22 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:58 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  The BTN was really well timed. Even if we get content from Fox or whoever owns it and partner with ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc., I question what the value add will be. I think that there will be one. Don't get me wrong. I just don't think that it will be anywhere close to as big as many on here believe.

The BTN doesn't add value for the B1G?

I don't think that's what he's saying. The ACC has all of it game rights tied up with ESPN, some of which are sublicensed to Raycom and the Fox RSNs. To provide programming for an ACCN, these games might need to be bought back. Alternatively, ESPN could contribute its ESPNU and ESPN3 inventory. In either case, how does the ACC justify getting paid more for games that ESPN/Raycom/Fox already own?

In the case of the SECN, the SEC did three things. First, the did not renegotiate additional rights fees for the addition of TAMU and Mizzou right away. Those were negotiated as part of the creation of the SECN. Second, the SEC extended its deal with ESPN until 2034. Finally, the SEC bought back some tier 3 rights that had been sold by the individual schools (1 fb game per season per school) and offered them to ESPN for the SECN. These all allowed the SEC to give ESPN "more value," which justified the additional payments to the SEC.

The ACC has already been paid by ESPN for the additions of SU, Pitt and ND and for its extension to 2027. Thus, the ACC's opportunity to add value is far more limited than the SEC's was. The ACC could buy back the Raycom or Fox rights and reoffer them to ESPN, probably more expensive than SEC's repurchase of certain tier 3 games. The ACC could also further extend its rights deal with ESPN past 2027.

When the BTN was formed, the B1G withheld enough games to provide programming for the BTN (as the P12 did when they formed their network). I think that this the timing and the value to which the prior post is referring.

No other Conference has a "Raycom". Let's see how this helps or hurts us in the long run.

(05-14-2015 11:22 AM)orangefan Wrote:  In the case of the SECN, the SEC did three things. First, the did not renegotiate additional rights fees for the addition of TAMU and Mizzou right away. Those were negotiated as part of the creation of the SECN. Second, the SEC extended its deal with ESPN until 2034. Finally, the SEC bought back some tier 3 rights that had been sold by the individual schools (1 fb game per season per school) and offered them to ESPN for the SECN. These all allowed the SEC to give ESPN "more value," which justified the additional payments to the SEC.

This is the big thing for ESPN. They have the SEC locked up so long that even if the Big Ten's next TV deal is 15 years, it will still expire before the ESPN-SEC deal does. So in the event that a bidding war gets the Big Ten a much better deal than the SEC's deal, ESPN still has the SEC for a very long time at what might turn out to be a bargain price.

(05-14-2015 11:22 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The BTN doesn't add value for the B1G?

I don't think that's what he's saying. The ACC has all of it game rights tied up with ESPN, some of which are sublicensed to Raycom and the Fox RSNs. To provide programming for an ACCN, these games might need to be bought back. Alternatively, ESPN could contribute its ESPNU and ESPN3 inventory. In either case, how does the ACC get paid more for games that ESPN/Raycom/Fox already own?

In the case of the SECN, the SEC did three things. First, the did not renegotiate additional rights fees for the addition of TAMU and Mizzou right away. Those were negotiated as part of the creation of the SECN. Second, the SEC extended its deal with ESPN until 2034. Finally, the SEC bought back some tier 3 rights that had been sold by the individual schools (1 fb game per season per school) and offered them to ESPN for the SECN. These all allowed the SEC to give ESPN "more value," which justified the additional payments to the SEC.

The ACC has already been paid by ESPN for the additions of SU, Pitt and ND and for its extension to 2027. Thus, the ACC's opportunity to add value is far more limited than the SEC's was. The ACC could buy back the Raycom or Fox rights and reoffer them to ESPN, probably more expensive than SEC's repurchase of certain tier 3 games. The ACC could also further extend its rights deal with ESPN past 2027.

When the BTN was formed, the B1G withheld enough games to provide programming for the BTN (as the P12 did when they formed their network). I think that this the timing and the value to which the prior post is referring.

You're somewhat close in that people forget the opportunity costs associated with networks. But, the timing to which I was primarily referring was the fact that there was an asymmetry of information when the BTN was formed. ESPN was the only serious player in the space (because of structural reasons stemming from the '80's and 90's) and other players weren't in a position to move quickly (the market was inefficient because the possibility of pricing wars didn't exist). Furthermore, conferences lacked an adequate understanding of their content's true value. ESPN was paying hundreds of thousands per school when the would have been paying millions in efficient markets. The B1G called ESPN's bluff and launched the BTN, which coincided with an unexpected growth in fan interest. The combined effect of increasing the conference's beta and bargaining position created massive profits. However, those profits were a matter of timing, not structural changes.

The ACC is in a different position. The intrinsic value of ACC media content is pretty well known and the sports media markets are MUCH more efficient today than they were ~10 years ago. Adding a network would not necessarily lead to a materially-increased payout after the costs of buying back content is factored into the calculation and after the payout is risk adjusted.

Right now the ACC is getting paid $18 and change, plus an increase of "over $2 million" if the conference doesn't get a network. That averages out to ~$20.5 million/school/year. That's roughly what the Pac 12 makes. Sure, the Pac's contract ends slightly earlier, and these contracts are back-loaded, but the Pac's exposure is MUCH worse. At the end of the day, I think that the ACC and the Pac have very similar media deals for similar products. As such, I think that there is substantial evidence to support my theory that the conference network delivery method is not inherently better than the older method. Don't get me wrong. I think that conference networks are better. I just don't see a possible ACCN as a game changer.

(05-14-2015 11:42 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 11:22 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The BTN doesn't add value for the B1G?

I don't think that's what he's saying. The ACC has all of it game rights tied up with ESPN, some of which are sublicensed to Raycom and the Fox RSNs. To provide programming for an ACCN, these games might need to be bought back. Alternatively, ESPN could contribute its ESPNU and ESPN3 inventory. In either case, how does the ACC get paid more for games that ESPN/Raycom/Fox already own?

In the case of the SECN, the SEC did three things. First, the did not renegotiate additional rights fees for the addition of TAMU and Mizzou right away. Those were negotiated as part of the creation of the SECN. Second, the SEC extended its deal with ESPN until 2034. Finally, the SEC bought back some tier 3 rights that had been sold by the individual schools (1 fb game per season per school) and offered them to ESPN for the SECN. These all allowed the SEC to give ESPN "more value," which justified the additional payments to the SEC.

The ACC has already been paid by ESPN for the additions of SU, Pitt and ND and for its extension to 2027. Thus, the ACC's opportunity to add value is far more limited than the SEC's was. The ACC could buy back the Raycom or Fox rights and reoffer them to ESPN, probably more expensive than SEC's repurchase of certain tier 3 games. The ACC could also further extend its rights deal with ESPN past 2027.

When the BTN was formed, the B1G withheld enough games to provide programming for the BTN (as the P12 did when they formed their network). I think that this the timing and the value to which the prior post is referring.

You're somewhat close in that people forget the opportunity costs associated with networks. But, the timing to which I was primarily referring was the fact that there was an asymmetry of information when the BTN was formed. ESPN was the only serious player in the space (because of structural reasons stemming from the '80's and 90's) and other players weren't in a position to move quickly (the market was inefficient because the possibility of pricing wars didn't exist). Furthermore, conferences lacked an adequate understanding of their content's true value. ESPN was paying hundreds of thousands per school when the would have been paying millions in efficient markets. The B1G called ESPN's bluff and launched the BTN, which coincided with an unexpected growth in fan interest. The combined effect of increasing the conference's beta and bargaining position created massive profits. However, those profits were a matter of timing, not structural changes.

The ACC is in a different position. The intrinsic value of ACC media content is pretty well known and the sports media markets are MUCH more efficient today than they were ~10 years ago. Adding a network would not necessarily lead to a materially-increased payout after the costs of buying back content is factored into the calculation and after the payout is risk adjusted.

Right now the ACC is getting paid $18 and change, plus an increase of "over $2 million" if the conference doesn't get a network. That averages out to ~$20.5 million/school/year. That's roughly what the Pac 12 makes. Sure, the Pac's contract ends slightly earlier, and these contracts are back-loaded, but the Pac's exposure is MUCH worse. At the end of the day, I think that the ACC and the Pac have very similar media deals for similar products. As such, I think that there is substantial evidence to support my theory that the conference network delivery method is not inherently better than the older method. Don't get me wrong. I think that conference networks are better. I just don't see a possible ACCN as a game changer.

I don't think that is true.

(05-14-2015 11:22 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 10:58 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  The BTN was really well timed. Even if we get content from Fox or whoever owns it and partner with ESPN/FOX/NBC/etc., I question what the value add will be. I think that there will be one. Don't get me wrong. I just don't think that it will be anywhere close to as big as many on here believe.

The BTN doesn't add value for the B1G?

I don't think that's what he's saying. The ACC has all of it game rights tied up with ESPN, some of which are sublicensed to Raycom and the Fox RSNs. To provide programming for an ACCN, these games might need to be bought back. Alternatively, ESPN could contribute its ESPNU and ESPN3 inventory. In either case, how does the ACC justify getting paid more for games that ESPN/Raycom/Fox already own?

In the case of the SECN, the SEC did three things. First, the did not renegotiate additional rights fees for the addition of TAMU and Mizzou right away. Those were negotiated as part of the creation of the SECN. Second, the SEC extended its deal with ESPN until 2034. Finally, the SEC bought back some tier 3 rights that had been sold by the individual schools (1 fb game per season per school) and offered them to ESPN for the SECN. These all allowed the SEC to give ESPN "more value," which justified the additional payments to the SEC.

The ACC has already been paid by ESPN for the additions of SU, Pitt and ND and for its extension to 2027. Thus, the ACC's opportunity to add value is far more limited than the SEC's was. The ACC could buy back the Raycom or Fox rights and reoffer them to ESPN, probably more expensive than SEC's repurchase of certain tier 3 games. The ACC could also further extend its rights deal with ESPN past 2027.

When the BTN was formed, the B1G withheld enough games to provide programming for the BTN (as the P12 did when they formed their network). I think that this the timing and the value to which the prior post is referring.

I see, thanks for the post.

When did they sign the deal that gave away all their games to ESPN? That seems like a dumb thing to do if you're hoping to offer enough content to start a specific channel just for your games.

Was it back during the time when the ACC's survival was questioned? In other words, was it a desperation move at the time to try locking everyone into the conference?