(05-14-2015 02:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 01:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2013/...c-network/

This is a good article that helps to explain what Raycom owns, what is has subleased, and it's relationship to over the air broadcasts.

Between now and 2027 Raycom has rights to 1 football game a year and 2.5 basketball games. They sublet to Fox 1.2 football games and 1.7 basketball games per year. Many of the games are specifically targeted into certain over the air markets such as Raleigh. Charlotte and Richmond have also previously bought over the air broadcasts from Raycom and blacked out ESPN in the past. It's not until around 2018 that you reach the midpoint of what Raycom bought.

Now, to address this you can do one of five things:

1. Ignore the Raycom and sublet Fox content
2. Buy back all the Raycom and sublet Fox content
3. Split the difference by buying back the content after a date certain, say 2018
4. Accelerate the timetable of content raising what Raycom has access to liquidate the content by an earlier date
5. A combination of 3 and 4.

Just stop. At this point it's embarrassing.

From the link you provided:

Quote:Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Quote:Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint.

Even if you misread at some point logic had to kick in when you try and wrap your head around how in the hell they are going to get .2 of a football game and .7 or .5 of a basketball game.

SMDH

I'm hoping he'll come back saying auto correct...LOL that was hilarious reading that...I was going WTH?

(05-14-2015 02:57 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 02:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 01:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2013/...c-network/

This is a good article that helps to explain what Raycom owns, what is has subleased, and it's relationship to over the air broadcasts.

Between now and 2027 Raycom has rights to 1 football game a year and 2.5 basketball games. They sublet to Fox 1.2 football games and 1.7 basketball games per year. Many of the games are specifically targeted into certain over the air markets such as Raleigh. Charlotte and Richmond have also previously bought over the air broadcasts from Raycom and blacked out ESPN in the past. It's not until around 2018 that you reach the midpoint of what Raycom bought.

Now, to address this you can do one of five things:

1. Ignore the Raycom and sublet Fox content
2. Buy back all the Raycom and sublet Fox content
3. Split the difference by buying back the content after a date certain, say 2018
4. Accelerate the timetable of content raising what Raycom has access to liquidate the content by an earlier date
5. A combination of 3 and 4.

Just stop. At this point it's embarrassing.

From the link you provided:

Quote:Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Quote:Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint.

Even if you misread at some point logic had to kick in when you try and wrap your head around how in the hell they are going to get .2 of a football game and .7 or .5 of a basketball game.

SMDH

I'm hoping he'll come back saying auto correct...LOL that was hilarious reading that...I was going WTH?

I just assumed it was supposed to be "per week" but I wasn't about to do the math on it.

(05-14-2015 02:57 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 02:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 01:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2013/...c-network/

This is a good article that helps to explain what Raycom owns, what is has subleased, and it's relationship to over the air broadcasts.

Between now and 2027 Raycom has rights to 1 football game a year and 2.5 basketball games. They sublet to Fox 1.2 football games and 1.7 basketball games per year. Many of the games are specifically targeted into certain over the air markets such as Raleigh. Charlotte and Richmond have also previously bought over the air broadcasts from Raycom and blacked out ESPN in the past. It's not until around 2018 that you reach the midpoint of what Raycom bought.

Now, to address this you can do one of five things:

1. Ignore the Raycom and sublet Fox content
2. Buy back all the Raycom and sublet Fox content
3. Split the difference by buying back the content after a date certain, say 2018
4. Accelerate the timetable of content raising what Raycom has access to liquidate the content by an earlier date
5. A combination of 3 and 4.

Just stop. At this point it's embarrassing.

From the link you provided:

Quote:Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Quote:Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint.

Even if you misread at some point logic had to kick in when you try and wrap your head around how in the hell they are going to get .2 of a football game and .7 or .5 of a basketball game.

SMDH

I'm hoping he'll come back saying auto correct...LOL that was hilarious reading that...I was going WTH?

I figure a temper tantrum complete with personal attacks is coming any time now.

(05-14-2015 03:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 02:57 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 02:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 01:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2013/...c-network/

This is a good article that helps to explain what Raycom owns, what is has subleased, and it's relationship to over the air broadcasts.

Between now and 2027 Raycom has rights to 1 football game a year and 2.5 basketball games. They sublet to Fox 1.2 football games and 1.7 basketball games per year. Many of the games are specifically targeted into certain over the air markets such as Raleigh. Charlotte and Richmond have also previously bought over the air broadcasts from Raycom and blacked out ESPN in the past. It's not until around 2018 that you reach the midpoint of what Raycom bought.

Now, to address this you can do one of five things:

1. Ignore the Raycom and sublet Fox content
2. Buy back all the Raycom and sublet Fox content
3. Split the difference by buying back the content after a date certain, say 2018
4. Accelerate the timetable of content raising what Raycom has access to liquidate the content by an earlier date
5. A combination of 3 and 4.

Just stop. At this point it's embarrassing.

From the link you provided:

Quote:Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Quote:Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint.

Even if you misread at some point logic had to kick in when you try and wrap your head around how in the hell they are going to get .2 of a football game and .7 or .5 of a basketball game.

SMDH

I'm hoping he'll come back saying auto correct...LOL that was hilarious reading that...I was going WTH?

I figure a temper tantrum complete with personal attacks is coming any time now.

(05-14-2015 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 01:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2013/...c-network/

This is a good article that helps to explain what Raycom owns, what is has subleased, and it's relationship to over the air broadcasts.

Between now and 2027 Raycom has rights to 1 football game a year and 2.5 basketball games. They sublet to Fox 1.2 football games and 1.7 basketball games per year. Many of the games are specifically targeted into certain over the air markets such as Raleigh. Charlotte and Richmond have also previously bought over the air broadcasts from Raycom and blacked out ESPN in the past. It's not until around 2018 that you reach the midpoint of what Raycom bought.

Now, to address this you can do one of five things:

1. Ignore the Raycom and sublet Fox content
2. Buy back all the Raycom and sublet Fox content
3. Split the difference by buying back the content after a date certain, say 2018
4. Accelerate the timetable of content raising what Raycom has access to liquidate the content by an earlier date
5. A combination of 3 and 4.

Or, wouldn't you say that you could fold Raycom into the deal some way? I mean, let's face it, Raycom can't continue to exist in it's traditional form...however, if they were to transition into a technical/production role in an ACC network, it could allow them to survive in some form. It's like the difference between laying off half the staff, or shutting the doors forever.

It's hard to know what exactly Raycom could offer that isn't redundant with ESPN capabilities, but Raycom is well equipped in production. It seems like there's potential to allow Raycom Sports an "adapt or die" moment here, rather than them just bleeding the ACC for every last cent they can get out of these rights.

Hmm, I divided an annual figure by the number of years left on the contract rather than multiplying the annual figure by what's left on the contract. By my reckoning there are 14 years left on the Raycom deal so that means they own 465 football games and 900 basketball games.

Glad I was able to assume those easily amused by a mathematical error.

Thoughts:
it isn't vlear to me how a network adds substantial amounts of value. I get that:
1. The conference would be taking on more risk and this get a higher reward. But that's just compensation for risk. It doesn't mean one system is inherently better than another system.
2. A conference-owned network would allow for greater control of the conference's branding. What's the marginal gain from that? I doubt it's significant-enough to be s game changer.
3. A conference-owned network would be great for internships. But how much value-add does that create? It's good, but it's not a game changer.
4. A joint-owned network with a major media partner (i.e. ESPN) would better allow the network to make long-term investments in the conference (i.e. cover the conference in a more favorable light). However, that marginal increase can't possibly be that great because the overwhelming majority of the ACC's NPV of media rights are already owned by media networks (mostly ESPN to be exact).

Combined, I don't see a lot of extra marginal value. Sure, there is some, but I doubt it's enough to change the game. What am I missing?

Sure, revenues will go up, but so will costs. Unless there is a significant structural advantage favoring conference networks, the content that the ACC buys back will roughly equal it's NPV when it's used as part of a conference network.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-network. I just am not losing sleep over it. I think that the advantages are very much overstated.

(05-14-2015 06:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Thoughts:
it isn't vlear to me how a network adds substantial amounts of value. I get that:
1. The conference would be taking on more risk and this get a higher reward. But that's just compensation for risk. It doesn't mean one system is inherently better than another system.
2. A conference-owned network would allow for greater control of the conference's branding. What's the marginal gain from that? I doubt it's significant-enough to be s game changer.
3. A conference-owned network would be great for internships. But how much value-add does that create? It's good, but it's not a game changer.
4. A joint-owned network with a major media partner (i.e. ESPN) would better allow the network to make long-term investments in the conference (i.e. cover the conference in a more favorable light). However, that marginal increase can't possibly be that great because the overwhelming majority of the ACC's NPV of media rights are already owned by media networks (mostly ESPN to be exact).

Combined, I don't see a lot of extra marginal value. Sure, there is some, but I doubt it's enough to change the game. What am I missing?

The value in a network model comes as the Raycom ownership portion winds down and from extracting cable tv fees. What can be obtained in cable carriage fees versus what can be bought back before the Raycom deal winds down seems to be the issue.

(05-14-2015 06:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Thoughts:
it isn't vlear to me how a network adds substantial amounts of value. I get that:
1. The conference would be taking on more risk and this get a higher reward. But that's just compensation for risk. It doesn't mean one system is inherently better than another system.
2. A conference-owned network would allow for greater control of the conference's branding. What's the marginal gain from that? I doubt it's significant-enough to be s game changer.
3. A conference-owned network would be great for internships. But how much value-add does that create? It's good, but it's not a game changer.
4. A joint-owned network with a major media partner (i.e. ESPN) would better allow the network to make long-term investments in the conference (i.e. cover the conference in a more favorable light). However, that marginal increase can't possibly be that great because the overwhelming majority of the ACC's NPV of media rights are already owned by media networks (mostly ESPN to be exact).

Combined, I don't see a lot of extra marginal value. Sure, there is some, but I doubt it's enough to change the game. What am I missing?

The value in a network model comes as the Raycom ownership portion winds down and from extracting cable tv fees. What can be obtained in cable carriage fees versus what can be bought back before the Raycom deal winds down seems to be the issue.

Why is the ACC better at extracting fees than ESPN/FOX/NBC?

(05-14-2015 06:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Thoughts:
it isn't vlear to me how a network adds substantial amounts of value. I get that:
1. The conference would be taking on more risk and this get a higher reward. But that's just compensation for risk. It doesn't mean one system is inherently better than another system.
2. A conference-owned network would allow for greater control of the conference's branding. What's the marginal gain from that? I doubt it's significant-enough to be s game changer.
3. A conference-owned network would be great for internships. But how much value-add does that create? It's good, but it's not a game changer.
4. A joint-owned network with a major media partner (i.e. ESPN) would better allow the network to make long-term investments in the conference (i.e. cover the conference in a more favorable light). However, that marginal increase can't possibly be that great because the overwhelming majority of the ACC's NPV of media rights are already owned by media networks (mostly ESPN to be exact).

Combined, I don't see a lot of extra marginal value. Sure, there is some, but I doubt it's enough to change the game. What am I missing?

The value in a network model comes as the Raycom ownership portion winds down and from extracting cable tv fees. What can be obtained in cable carriage fees versus what can be bought back before the Raycom deal winds down seems to be the issue.

Why is the ACC better at extracting fees than ESPN/FOX/NBC?

Are they?

An ACC network would be a must have for cable in Florida (Miami/FSU), Georgia (GT/FSU/CU), North Carolina (UNC/NCSU/Duke/NC State), Va, (Va/VT) DC (Va/VT), West Pa, (Pitt) NY State (Syracuse), NYC (Syracuse/Duke/UNC), Kentucky (Louisville), Greater Boston/NE (BC) and Greater Chicagoland (ND). You would also be able to sell it cheap in parts of Ohio, NE Tennesee, SW Alabama, West Va, Eastern PA, and NJ.

I suspect that what ESPN got from Raycom does not come close to what they could get from cable fees. It would therefor be in ESPN's interest to get the fees, moreover, ESPN then has a bundle that they can add to the SECN for the northeast in Chicagoland, PA, VA, MD, NY, NYC, Greater Boston, NYC.

The big missing piece is what Raycom paid to ESPN for about 20% of the content. If someone can dig that out, then you can compare it to the estimated value of an ACC network from a carriage fee standpoint. Whatever that net is, divide it by 2 and that would the be ACC's rough share.

(05-14-2015 06:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Thoughts:
it isn't vlear to me how a network adds substantial amounts of value. I get that:
1. The conference would be taking on more risk and this get a higher reward. But that's just compensation for risk. It doesn't mean one system is inherently better than another system.
2. A conference-owned network would allow for greater control of the conference's branding. What's the marginal gain from that? I doubt it's significant-enough to be s game changer.
3. A conference-owned network would be great for internships. But how much value-add does that create? It's good, but it's not a game changer.
4. A joint-owned network with a major media partner (i.e. ESPN) would better allow the network to make long-term investments in the conference (i.e. cover the conference in a more favorable light). However, that marginal increase can't possibly be that great because the overwhelming majority of the ACC's NPV of media rights are already owned by media networks (mostly ESPN to be exact).

Combined, I don't see a lot of extra marginal value. Sure, there is some, but I doubt it's enough to change the game. What am I missing?

The value in a network model comes as the Raycom ownership portion winds down and from extracting cable tv fees. What can be obtained in cable carriage fees versus what can be bought back before the Raycom deal winds down seems to be the issue.

Why is the ACC better at extracting fees than ESPN/FOX/NBC?

Are they?

I doubt it, which is why I don't see the value add.

(05-14-2015 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An ACC network would be a must have for cable in Florida (Miami/FSU), Georgia (GT/FSU/CU), North Carolina (UNC/NCSU/Duke/NC State), Va, (Va/VT) DC (Va/VT), West Pa, (Pitt) NY State (Syracuse), NYC (Syracuse/Duke/UNC), Kentucky (Louisville), Greater Boston/NE (BC) and Greater Chicagoland (ND). You would also be able to sell it cheap in parts of Ohio, NE Tennesee, SW Alabama, West Va, Eastern PA, and NJ.

I suspect that what ESPN got from Raycom does not come close to what they could get from cable fees. It would therefor be in ESPN's interest to get the fees, moreover, ESPN then has a bundle that they can add to the SECN for the northeast in Chicagoland, PA, VA, MD, NY, NYC, Greater Boston, NYC.

The big missing piece is what Raycom paid to ESPN for about 20% of the content. If someone can dig that out, then you can compare it to the estimated value of an ACC network from a carriage fee standpoint. Whatever that net is, divide it by 2 and that would the be ACC's rough share.

I don't disagree that the ACCN would sell like hot cakes in those areas, but if they take content from ESPN, won't that hurt ESPN's carriage rates?

(05-14-2015 07:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Thoughts:
it isn't vlear to me how a network adds substantial amounts of value. I get that:
1. The conference would be taking on more risk and this get a higher reward. But that's just compensation for risk. It doesn't mean one system is inherently better than another system.
2. A conference-owned network would allow for greater control of the conference's branding. What's the marginal gain from that? I doubt it's significant-enough to be s game changer.
3. A conference-owned network would be great for internships. But how much value-add does that create? It's good, but it's not a game changer.
4. A joint-owned network with a major media partner (i.e. ESPN) would better allow the network to make long-term investments in the conference (i.e. cover the conference in a more favorable light). However, that marginal increase can't possibly be that great because the overwhelming majority of the ACC's NPV of media rights are already owned by media networks (mostly ESPN to be exact).

Combined, I don't see a lot of extra marginal value. Sure, there is some, but I doubt it's enough to change the game. What am I missing?

The value in a network model comes as the Raycom ownership portion winds down and from extracting cable tv fees. What can be obtained in cable carriage fees versus what can be bought back before the Raycom deal winds down seems to be the issue.

Why is the ACC better at extracting fees than ESPN/FOX/NBC?

Are they?

I doubt it, which is why I don't see the value add.

Why does the ACC have to be better at extracting fees? It's ESPN that will extract the fee not the ACC if there is a SECN style network. The ACC will not go the B10 route because of the downside risk.

(05-14-2015 07:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 06:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The value in a network model comes as the Raycom ownership portion winds down and from extracting cable tv fees. What can be obtained in cable carriage fees versus what can be bought back before the Raycom deal winds down seems to be the issue.

Why is the ACC better at extracting fees than ESPN/FOX/NBC?

Are they?

I doubt it, which is why I don't see the value add.

Why does the ACC have to be better at extracting fees? It's ESPN that will extract the fee not the ACC if there is a SECN style network. The ACC will not go the B10 route because of the downside risk.

Because then the NPV of the content is equal to the cost of the content, and no value is created.

(05-14-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An ACC network would be a must have for cable in Florida (Miami/FSU), Georgia (GT/FSU/CU), North Carolina (UNC/NCSU/Duke/NC State), Va, (Va/VT) DC (Va/VT), West Pa, (Pitt) NY State (Syracuse), NYC (Syracuse/Duke/UNC), Kentucky (Louisville), Greater Boston/NE (BC) and Greater Chicagoland (ND). You would also be able to sell it cheap in parts of Ohio, NE Tennesee, SW Alabama, West Va, Eastern PA, and NJ.

I suspect that what ESPN got from Raycom does not come close to what they could get from cable fees. It would therefor be in ESPN's interest to get the fees, moreover, ESPN then has a bundle that they can add to the SECN for the northeast in Chicagoland, PA, VA, MD, NY, NYC, Greater Boston, NYC.

The big missing piece is what Raycom paid to ESPN for about 20% of the content. If someone can dig that out, then you can compare it to the estimated value of an ACC network from a carriage fee standpoint. Whatever that net is, divide it by 2 and that would the be ACC's rough share.

I don't disagree that the ACCN would sell like hot cakes in those areas, but if they take content from ESPN, won't that hurt ESPN's carriage rates?

Probably not. People are primed to overpay for something. Just having Notre Dame on the network will sell it in a lot of markets.

What ESPN sold to Raycom was the trash for lack of a better word. You can rest assured it was not sold at a premium price. This means ESPN is losing money it could make if it had that content to market on it's network, moreover, it can rebroadcast that stuff, whereas Raycom tends not to rebroadcast since the demand for a rebroadcast is not great.

I guess what I saying is that ESPN through a network, can sell it multiple times whereas Raycom sells it once. Have you actually watches the SECN? It's mostly junk, but there are a few games, and if you like to watch young female athletes they have plenty of those - sometimes it might beat a re-run of the Simpsons.

"Discussions with ESPN regarding a possible network are “moving well,” he said. Swofford refrained from making any more substantive comment on the progress of talks.

“We anticipated it would be a two- to three-year stretch in terms of getting to whatever endpoint that we get to,” Swofford said. “We’re right on schedule with that. … We’ve got a great partner in ESPN and together we think we can do some really good things, continue to do some really good things.”"

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/s...e-c/nmGsb/

So the negotiations are going well and are on schedule with the two-to-three year time frame that was originally anticipated.

Beyond an announcement that the deal deal is done and a launch date for the network has been determined, what exactly do you all want/expect to hear about the network at this point?

I doubt that ESPN left any money on the table in the Raycom deal because they knew going in to the negotiations that without the content they were going to provide Raycom Sports ceases to exist. They were being forced into this arrangement so I highly doubt they cut Raycom any deals. If they did it is because they took an equivalent amount off our paycheck since we were the ones who forced them into this asinine deal to begin with.

That's also why it is going to either cost us a ton up front to buy these games back from Raycom or cost us a little forever to include them in any network deal. Raycom sports only exists because of the good old boy workings of this Godforsaken conference. They had put out such a putrid product that they lost every single property in a whole range of sports other than the ACC they had in the past. It's going to cost us millions to get them to play ball....the only question is does it cost us a lot up front or a little for decades.

But hey....at least a NC company is making money and Chad Swofford has a job. That matters a lot more than us being able to compete at a more level playing field with our peers right?

(05-14-2015 08:59 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An ACC network would be a must have for cable in Florida (Miami/FSU), Georgia (GT/FSU/CU), North Carolina (UNC/NCSU/Duke/NC State), Va, (Va/VT) DC (Va/VT), West Pa, (Pitt) NY State (Syracuse), NYC (Syracuse/Duke/UNC), Kentucky (Louisville), Greater Boston/NE (BC) and Greater Chicagoland (ND). You would also be able to sell it cheap in parts of Ohio, NE Tennesee, SW Alabama, West Va, Eastern PA, and NJ.

I suspect that what ESPN got from Raycom does not come close to what they could get from cable fees. It would therefor be in ESPN's interest to get the fees, moreover, ESPN then has a bundle that they can add to the SECN for the northeast in Chicagoland, PA, VA, MD, NY, NYC, Greater Boston, NYC.

The big missing piece is what Raycom paid to ESPN for about 20% of the content. If someone can dig that out, then you can compare it to the estimated value of an ACC network from a carriage fee standpoint. Whatever that net is, divide it by 2 and that would the be ACC's rough share.

I don't disagree that the ACCN would sell like hot cakes in those areas, but if they take content from ESPN, won't that hurt ESPN's carriage rates?

Probably not. People are primed to overpay for something. Just having Notre Dame on the network will sell it in a lot of markets.

What ESPN sold to Raycom was the trash for lack of a better word. You can rest assured it was not sold at a premium price. This means ESPN is losing money it could make if it had that content to market on it's network, moreover, it can rebroadcast that stuff, whereas Raycom tends not to rebroadcast since the demand for a rebroadcast is not great.

I guess what I saying is that ESPN through a network, can sell it multiple times whereas Raycom sells it once. Have you actually watches the SECN? It's mostly junk, but there are a few games, and if you like to watch young female athletes they have plenty of those - sometimes it might beat a re-run of the Simpsons.

I'm not entirely sure that I follow your train of thought, but if you're claiming that A) ESPN has an inelastic demand, then I'd argue that you're wrong - otherwise they would raise the price until it was elastic, or B) that ESPN took one for the team when selling content to Raycom, then I'm not sure that I grasp the significance of this assertion, but I doubt it. The mouse doesn't strike me as an angel.

(05-14-2015 09:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:59 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An ACC network would be a must have for cable in Florida (Miami/FSU), Georgia (GT/FSU/CU), North Carolina (UNC/NCSU/Duke/NC State), Va, (Va/VT) DC (Va/VT), West Pa, (Pitt) NY State (Syracuse), NYC (Syracuse/Duke/UNC), Kentucky (Louisville), Greater Boston/NE (BC) and Greater Chicagoland (ND). You would also be able to sell it cheap in parts of Ohio, NE Tennesee, SW Alabama, West Va, Eastern PA, and NJ.

I suspect that what ESPN got from Raycom does not come close to what they could get from cable fees. It would therefor be in ESPN's interest to get the fees, moreover, ESPN then has a bundle that they can add to the SECN for the northeast in Chicagoland, PA, VA, MD, NY, NYC, Greater Boston, NYC.

The big missing piece is what Raycom paid to ESPN for about 20% of the content. If someone can dig that out, then you can compare it to the estimated value of an ACC network from a carriage fee standpoint. Whatever that net is, divide it by 2 and that would the be ACC's rough share.

I don't disagree that the ACCN would sell like hot cakes in those areas, but if they take content from ESPN, won't that hurt ESPN's carriage rates?

Probably not. People are primed to overpay for something. Just having Notre Dame on the network will sell it in a lot of markets.

What ESPN sold to Raycom was the trash for lack of a better word. You can rest assured it was not sold at a premium price. This means ESPN is losing money it could make if it had that content to market on it's network, moreover, it can rebroadcast that stuff, whereas Raycom tends not to rebroadcast since the demand for a rebroadcast is not great.

I guess what I saying is that ESPN through a network, can sell it multiple times whereas Raycom sells it once. Have you actually watches the SECN? It's mostly junk, but there are a few games, and if you like to watch young female athletes they have plenty of those - sometimes it might beat a re-run of the Simpsons.

I'm not entirely sure that I follow your train of thought, but if you're claiming that A) ESPN has an inelastic demand, then I'd argue that you're wrong - otherwise they would raise the price until it was elastic, or B) that ESPN took one for the team when selling content to Raycom, then I'm not sure that I grasp the significance of this assertion, but I doubt it. The mouse doesn't strike me as an angel.

What I am saying is that ESPN sold the bottom value of the ACC to Raycom. That bottom value content has different values as:

1. Over the air
2. Cable
3. Part of dedicated network
a. ACC Stand Alone Network
b. ESPNACCN
c. Some crappy Raycom Network

When it was first packaged, the Raycom content was almost surplus to ESPN and certainly of lesser value.

(05-14-2015 09:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 09:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 08:59 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An ACC network would be a must have for cable in Florida (Miami/FSU), Georgia (GT/FSU/CU), North Carolina (UNC/NCSU/Duke/NC State), Va, (Va/VT) DC (Va/VT), West Pa, (Pitt) NY State (Syracuse), NYC (Syracuse/Duke/UNC), Kentucky (Louisville), Greater Boston/NE (BC) and Greater Chicagoland (ND). You would also be able to sell it cheap in parts of Ohio, NE Tennesee, SW Alabama, West Va, Eastern PA, and NJ.

I suspect that what ESPN got from Raycom does not come close to what they could get from cable fees. It would therefor be in ESPN's interest to get the fees, moreover, ESPN then has a bundle that they can add to the SECN for the northeast in Chicagoland, PA, VA, MD, NY, NYC, Greater Boston, NYC.

The big missing piece is what Raycom paid to ESPN for about 20% of the content. If someone can dig that out, then you can compare it to the estimated value of an ACC network from a carriage fee standpoint. Whatever that net is, divide it by 2 and that would the be ACC's rough share.

I don't disagree that the ACCN would sell like hot cakes in those areas, but if they take content from ESPN, won't that hurt ESPN's carriage rates?

Probably not. People are primed to overpay for something. Just having Notre Dame on the network will sell it in a lot of markets.

What ESPN sold to Raycom was the trash for lack of a better word. You can rest assured it was not sold at a premium price. This means ESPN is losing money it could make if it had that content to market on it's network, moreover, it can rebroadcast that stuff, whereas Raycom tends not to rebroadcast since the demand for a rebroadcast is not great.

I guess what I saying is that ESPN through a network, can sell it multiple times whereas Raycom sells it once. Have you actually watches the SECN? It's mostly junk, but there are a few games, and if you like to watch young female athletes they have plenty of those - sometimes it might beat a re-run of the Simpsons.

I'm not entirely sure that I follow your train of thought, but if you're claiming that A) ESPN has an inelastic demand, then I'd argue that you're wrong - otherwise they would raise the price until it was elastic, or B) that ESPN took one for the team when selling content to Raycom, then I'm not sure that I grasp the significance of this assertion, but I doubt it. The mouse doesn't strike me as an angel.

What I am saying is that ESPN sold the bottom value of the ACC to Raycom. That bottom value content has different values as:

1. Over the air
2. Cable
3. Part of dedicated network
a. ACC Stand Alone Network
b. ESPNACCN
c. Some crappy Raycom Network

When it was first packaged, the Raycom content was almost surplus to ESPN and certainly of lesser value.

Sure. How does ACC ownership affect the valuation? We sold our rights. Unless we buy them back at FMV, we aren't needed for an ACC-centric channel. And, if we do buy them back at FMV, how would we make money?