(05-30-2015 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 12:01 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 11:44 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  [quote='GTFletch' pid='12093651' dateline='1433001020']
Ok...Being an ACC Fan I was thrilled to hear that the SEC network only took the SEC 8 million per school a head of the ACC (However we need to see all P5 Conf FY 15 dollars before we crown the off-season champions)

Since you started a new thread about my posts I thought it was appropriate to repost both of them here:

RE: CIncy and ECU to Big 12 within 1 month?
(Today 07:04 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:

The ACCN IS going to happen. Anyone with half a brain knows it's going to happen. The ACC schools are all going to stay put. They signed that GOR because they didn't want to break apart. They could've gotten out when the getting was good, but didn't. Agreed, the BigXII needs to quit dreaming about ACC schools. It's not going to happen. The only conferences the BigXII's going to raid will be the American or the Mountain West.
Anyone with both halves of their brain knows nothing is certain.

An ACCN is unlikely, I'm truly sorry to say. The ACC schools, on average, are too small in football. More importantly, the ACC severely messed up when they expanded and did not reserve the extra conference games as possible ACCN games, or maybe they wanted to but the new "left over" conference games, the ones left after ESPN and the others who would pick after ESPN (Raycom and those who bought games from ESPN and Raycom), would not command enough carriage rights. Therefore, the ACC has no games to put on an ACCN. It would not be enough to just buy back the Raycom games, that would still not be enough quality content.

The ACC also missed the opportunity to have ESPN shop their network when ESPN and all of the other Disney properties were renegotiating new carriage contracts. There is little possibility an ACCN gets traction being pushed on carriers by itself, even with ESPN doing the pushing. Remember, the Longhorn Network could not even get in the vast majority of homes in the State of Texas until it was bundled with ESPN/Disney properties. Those contracts have already been written and likely will not end until 4 years from now, on average. By then a new conference network might not be that big of a moneymaker, especially with the preponderance of private schools.

It is so bad for the ACC that I cannot even see an ACCN created if ND goes all in because the ACC and ND both made a huge mistake by contracting to play 5 ND/ACC football games per year and selling such to ESPN. Because of ND's contract with NBC, if ND became a full member and played 8 conference games, if NBC retains 4, that is only 4 ACC conference games. That could probably be pushed to 6 ND ACC conference games by negotiating NBC covering 2 or 3 of ND's non-ACC conference games, and going to a 9 games conference schedule, but 6 ND ACC conference games is only one more than the ACC has now. One more ND ACC conference game is not going to make an ACCN viable.

The only way I can see an ACCN happen in the next four years is for the ACC to get ND all in, and for Texas and four other schools that move the needle also join. Something like OU, OSU, TT and WV, or OU, WV, UCONN and CINN (more basketball). That is not likely to happen for three reasons. First, ESPN already owns a majority of those teams' media rights with FOX owning a large second stake. You would be asking ESPN to pay more for what it already owns and paying off FOX or giving FOX a slice of the ACC pie, and the latter is not likely since ESPN probably loves having a 100% stake in the ACC. Second, good luck breaking up the Big 12; it is doable, but because of the first reason, why would ESPN want to make such investment? Third, if the Big 12 can be broken up and the pieces be consumed, there are bigger fish in the sea than the ACC that would be doing the feasting on the biggest and tastiest parts, the SEC and B1G.

Not trolling, just honest analysis.

Lurker Above


RE: CIncy and ECU to Big 12 within 1 month?
(Today 09:36 AM)GTFletch Wrote:
(Today 09:29 AM)chess Wrote:
So, why can't the ACC buy or merge Raycom into an ACC Network?
They can and they will have to to create the ACCN since Raycom has third third rights! That is why most ACC fans think the 2016 launch date is a bit soon and expect a launch between 2016 and 2018...
That is a common misconception. Buying back Raycom's games will not be enough. There is not enough content in those games. Those are games ESPN did not really care about. The fourth best ACC weekend matchup is not going to move the needle. By comparison, when the SECN started it was able to put the TAMA/SC game on the SEC the first week. That was important because both Texas and SC cable rights were a targeted low hanging fruit, but what most people failed to realize how ESPN and the SEC were able to do this. CBS still got to pick first, and ESPN still needed to have 2 or 3 good SEC games on ESPN and ESPN2 in order to maintain those networks' value. The SECN was able to match TAMA and SC because the SEC had enough compelling programing to show that weekend and throughout the year on multiple networks. The ACC just does not have that content, not just because they have too many mediocre football teams and small private schools, but they have already sold all of the marketable games to ESPN. The only way they get more marketable content is to expand to 20 teams, as I discussed above.

Another thing. Buying back those games is easier said than done. As to Raycom, if they sell them back they are out of business. If the ACC incorporates them then the ACC and ESPN are sharing limited profits 3 ways. That might be acceptable, but the really hard part would be buying back the games Raycom sold, especially the ones sold to FOX. Do you think FOX wants to sell those much needed games and be excluded from any ACC content with their new FOX Sports 1 and 2? Hardly. If it were possible to buy back the games FOX acquired it would be too expensive to make a profit.

Lurker Above

I understand until there is actually an ACCN on TV, you do not want to acknowledge that an ACCN is being developed... I am ok with that! The bottomline is it is coming....For ACC fans it is not a matter of if, it is when...2016 it may not, by 2018 it will..

The end of the world is coming too. The question remains when? The issue is you accused someone of drinking Kool aid. But the sources you cited were about 4 or 5 flavors of Kool aid. I'm all about supporting your conference and school. Maybe you get an ACCN but when? Time in the face of an earnings gap will be critical. There are variables. There is the duration of the GOR. There is the Big 10 renegotiation. There is the arrival of the full value of the SECN in another year. There is the duration of the lease to the FOX affiliate in New York which ends about 2021 (which is my understanding). There is N.D.'s renegotiation with NBC looming larger. So there are simply a lot of very important variables that must all come together precisely and in a particular specific timeline for there to be an ACCN by 2017 or 18, not to mention by 2016 which is really improbable at best and impossible by all reasoning.

So don't be surprised at the responses. It's nice to see the sanity in those responses.

We're locked up till 2025.

(05-30-2015 12:34 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 12:01 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 11:44 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  [quote='GTFletch' pid='12093651' dateline='1433001020']
Ok...Being an ACC Fan I was thrilled to hear that the SEC network only took the SEC 8 million per school a head of the ACC (However we need to see all P5 Conf FY 15 dollars before we crown the off-season champions)

Since you started a new thread about my posts I thought it was appropriate to repost both of them here:

RE: CIncy and ECU to Big 12 within 1 month?
(Today 07:04 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:

The ACCN IS going to happen. Anyone with half a brain knows it's going to happen. The ACC schools are all going to stay put. They signed that GOR because they didn't want to break apart. They could've gotten out when the getting was good, but didn't. Agreed, the BigXII needs to quit dreaming about ACC schools. It's not going to happen. The only conferences the BigXII's going to raid will be the American or the Mountain West.
Anyone with both halves of their brain knows nothing is certain.

An ACCN is unlikely, I'm truly sorry to say. The ACC schools, on average, are too small in football. More importantly, the ACC severely messed up when they expanded and did not reserve the extra conference games as possible ACCN games, or maybe they wanted to but the new "left over" conference games, the ones left after ESPN and the others who would pick after ESPN (Raycom and those who bought games from ESPN and Raycom), would not command enough carriage rights. Therefore, the ACC has no games to put on an ACCN. It would not be enough to just buy back the Raycom games, that would still not be enough quality content.

The ACC also missed the opportunity to have ESPN shop their network when ESPN and all of the other Disney properties were renegotiating new carriage contracts. There is little possibility an ACCN gets traction being pushed on carriers by itself, even with ESPN doing the pushing. Remember, the Longhorn Network could not even get in the vast majority of homes in the State of Texas until it was bundled with ESPN/Disney properties. Those contracts have already been written and likely will not end until 4 years from now, on average. By then a new conference network might not be that big of a moneymaker, especially with the preponderance of private schools.

It is so bad for the ACC that I cannot even see an ACCN created if ND goes all in because the ACC and ND both made a huge mistake by contracting to play 5 ND/ACC football games per year and selling such to ESPN. Because of ND's contract with NBC, if ND became a full member and played 8 conference games, if NBC retains 4, that is only 4 ACC conference games. That could probably be pushed to 6 ND ACC conference games by negotiating NBC covering 2 or 3 of ND's non-ACC conference games, and going to a 9 games conference schedule, but 6 ND ACC conference games is only one more than the ACC has now. One more ND ACC conference game is not going to make an ACCN viable.

The only way I can see an ACCN happen in the next four years is for the ACC to get ND all in, and for Texas and four other schools that move the needle also join. Something like OU, OSU, TT and WV, or OU, WV, UCONN and CINN (more basketball). That is not likely to happen for three reasons. First, ESPN already owns a majority of those teams' media rights with FOX owning a large second stake. You would be asking ESPN to pay more for what it already owns and paying off FOX or giving FOX a slice of the ACC pie, and the latter is not likely since ESPN probably loves having a 100% stake in the ACC. Second, good luck breaking up the Big 12; it is doable, but because of the first reason, why would ESPN want to make such investment? Third, if the Big 12 can be broken up and the pieces be consumed, there are bigger fish in the sea than the ACC that would be doing the feasting on the biggest and tastiest parts, the SEC and B1G.

Not trolling, just honest analysis.

Lurker Above


RE: CIncy and ECU to Big 12 within 1 month?
(Today 09:36 AM)GTFletch Wrote:
(Today 09:29 AM)chess Wrote:
So, why can't the ACC buy or merge Raycom into an ACC Network?
They can and they will have to to create the ACCN since Raycom has third third rights! That is why most ACC fans think the 2016 launch date is a bit soon and expect a launch between 2016 and 2018...
That is a common misconception. Buying back Raycom's games will not be enough. There is not enough content in those games. Those are games ESPN did not really care about. The fourth best ACC weekend matchup is not going to move the needle. By comparison, when the SECN started it was able to put the TAMA/SC game on the SEC the first week. That was important because both Texas and SC cable rights were a targeted low hanging fruit, but what most people failed to realize how ESPN and the SEC were able to do this. CBS still got to pick first, and ESPN still needed to have 2 or 3 good SEC games on ESPN and ESPN2 in order to maintain those networks' value. The SECN was able to match TAMA and SC because the SEC had enough compelling programing to show that weekend and throughout the year on multiple networks. The ACC just does not have that content, not just because they have too many mediocre football teams and small private schools, but they have already sold all of the marketable games to ESPN. The only way they get more marketable content is to expand to 20 teams, as I discussed above.

Another thing. Buying back those games is easier said than done. As to Raycom, if they sell them back they are out of business. If the ACC incorporates them then the ACC and ESPN are sharing limited profits 3 ways. That might be acceptable, but the really hard part would be buying back the games Raycom sold, especially the ones sold to FOX. Do you think FOX wants to sell those much needed games and be excluded from any ACC content with their new FOX Sports 1 and 2? Hardly. If it were possible to buy back the games FOX acquired it would be too expensive to make a profit.

Lurker Above

I understand until there is actually an ACCN on TV, you do not want to acknowledge that an ACCN is being developed... I am ok with that! The bottomline is it is coming....For ACC fans it is not a matter of if, it is when...2016 it may not, by 2018 it will..

The end of the world is coming too. The question remains when? The issue is you accused someone of drinking Kool aid. But the sources you cited were about 4 or 5 flavors of Kool aid. I'm all about supporting your conference and school. Maybe you get an ACCN but when? Time in the face of an earnings gap will be critical. There are variables. There is the duration of the GOR. There is the Big 10 renegotiation. There is the arrival of the full value of the SECN in another year. There is the duration of the lease to the FOX affiliate in New York which ends about 2021 (which is my understanding). There is N.D.'s renegotiation with NBC looming larger. So there are simply a lot of very important variables that must all come together precisely and in a particular specific timeline for there to be an ACCN by 2017 or 18, not to mention by 2016 which is really improbable at best and impossible by all reasoning.

So don't be surprised at the responses. It's nice to see the sanity in those responses.

We're locked up till 2025.

There is always an out clause in those contracts that has the contract only valid as long as ND remains independent.

But then, it is an out clause that ND has no intention of exercising so it's locked.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-30-2015 12:01 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 11:44 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  [quote='GTFletch' pid='12093651' dateline='1433001020']
Ok...Being an ACC Fan I was thrilled to hear that the SEC network only took the SEC 8 million per school a head of the ACC (However we need to see all P5 Conf FY 15 dollars before we crown the off-season champions)

Since you started a new thread about my posts I thought it was appropriate to repost both of them here:

RE: CIncy and ECU to Big 12 within 1 month?
(Today 07:04 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:

The ACCN IS going to happen. Anyone with half a brain knows it's going to happen. The ACC schools are all going to stay put. They signed that GOR because they didn't want to break apart. They could've gotten out when the getting was good, but didn't. Agreed, the BigXII needs to quit dreaming about ACC schools. It's not going to happen. The only conferences the BigXII's going to raid will be the American or the Mountain West.
Anyone with both halves of their brain knows nothing is certain.

An ACCN is unlikely, I'm truly sorry to say. The ACC schools, on average, are too small in football. More importantly, the ACC severely messed up when they expanded and did not reserve the extra conference games as possible ACCN games, or maybe they wanted to but the new "left over" conference games, the ones left after ESPN and the others who would pick after ESPN (Raycom and those who bought games from ESPN and Raycom), would not command enough carriage rights. Therefore, the ACC has no games to put on an ACCN. It would not be enough to just buy back the Raycom games, that would still not be enough quality content.

The ACC also missed the opportunity to have ESPN shop their network when ESPN and all of the other Disney properties were renegotiating new carriage contracts. There is little possibility an ACCN gets traction being pushed on carriers by itself, even with ESPN doing the pushing. Remember, the Longhorn Network could not even get in the vast majority of homes in the State of Texas until it was bundled with ESPN/Disney properties. Those contracts have already been written and likely will not end until 4 years from now, on average. By then a new conference network might not be that big of a moneymaker, especially with the preponderance of private schools.

It is so bad for the ACC that I cannot even see an ACCN created if ND goes all in because the ACC and ND both made a huge mistake by contracting to play 5 ND/ACC football games per year and selling such to ESPN. Because of ND's contract with NBC, if ND became a full member and played 8 conference games, if NBC retains 4, that is only 4 ACC conference games. That could probably be pushed to 6 ND ACC conference games by negotiating NBC covering 2 or 3 of ND's non-ACC conference games, and going to a 9 games conference schedule, but 6 ND ACC conference games is only one more than the ACC has now. One more ND ACC conference game is not going to make an ACCN viable.

The only way I can see an ACCN happen in the next four years is for the ACC to get ND all in, and for Texas and four other schools that move the needle also join. Something like OU, OSU, TT and WV, or OU, WV, UCONN and CINN (more basketball). That is not likely to happen for three reasons. First, ESPN already owns a majority of those teams' media rights with FOX owning a large second stake. You would be asking ESPN to pay more for what it already owns and paying off FOX or giving FOX a slice of the ACC pie, and the latter is not likely since ESPN probably loves having a 100% stake in the ACC. Second, good luck breaking up the Big 12; it is doable, but because of the first reason, why would ESPN want to make such investment? Third, if the Big 12 can be broken up and the pieces be consumed, there are bigger fish in the sea than the ACC that would be doing the feasting on the biggest and tastiest parts, the SEC and B1G.

Not trolling, just honest analysis.

Lurker Above


RE: CIncy and ECU to Big 12 within 1 month?
(Today 09:36 AM)GTFletch Wrote:
(Today 09:29 AM)chess Wrote:
So, why can't the ACC buy or merge Raycom into an ACC Network?
They can and they will have to to create the ACCN since Raycom has third third rights! That is why most ACC fans think the 2016 launch date is a bit soon and expect a launch between 2016 and 2018...
That is a common misconception. Buying back Raycom's games will not be enough. There is not enough content in those games. Those are games ESPN did not really care about. The fourth best ACC weekend matchup is not going to move the needle. By comparison, when the SECN started it was able to put the TAMA/SC game on the SEC the first week. That was important because both Texas and SC cable rights were a targeted low hanging fruit, but what most people failed to realize how ESPN and the SEC were able to do this. CBS still got to pick first, and ESPN still needed to have 2 or 3 good SEC games on ESPN and ESPN2 in order to maintain those networks' value. The SECN was able to match TAMA and SC because the SEC had enough compelling programing to show that weekend and throughout the year on multiple networks. The ACC just does not have that content, not just because they have too many mediocre football teams and small private schools, but they have already sold all of the marketable games to ESPN. The only way they get more marketable content is to expand to 20 teams, as I discussed above.

Another thing. Buying back those games is easier said than done. As to Raycom, if they sell them back they are out of business. If the ACC incorporates them then the ACC and ESPN are sharing limited profits 3 ways. That might be acceptable, but the really hard part would be buying back the games Raycom sold, especially the ones sold to FOX. Do you think FOX wants to sell those much needed games and be excluded from any ACC content with their new FOX Sports 1 and 2? Hardly. If it were possible to buy back the games FOX acquired it would be too expensive to make a profit.

Lurker Above

I understand until there is actually an ACCN on TV, you do not want to acknowledge that an ACCN is being developed... I am ok with that! The bottomline is it is coming....For ACC fans it is not a matter of if, it is when...2016 it may not, by 2018 it will..

How long did you say an ACCN would be coming in 2016? Of course it will not be 2016 because if it were it would have been announced at the spring meeting, or if they were close, they would be promoting the network idea to generate public support to get the parties across the finish line.

So what do we know? The ACC has wanted a network since 2013, if not 2012. There is no ACCN 3 or 4 years later.

What really changes from 2016 to 2017? One less year of tier 3 rights to buy back? If that were all I would think the ACC takes the economic hit to get the PR benefit of getting the network announced. If it is not economically feasible in 2016 it likely will not be in 2017.

2018? The ACC may not be the same conference by then. That is a long time not to loose at least one member, and if such happens others likely leave and the value of an ACCN certainly would fall with such instability.

You are desperately holding onto the line given by Swofford, and parroted by the Wake Forrest AD and a few others that goes something like, "An ACCN will happen eventually because the population footprint is too large for it not to be profitable and everyone needs to understand these things take time." OK, that could be true, but more likely it is wishful thinking if not outright deceit by Swofford. He knows everyone in the ACC wants an ACCN, he knows he helped chain the ACC to their present media rights agreements, he knows schools were considering leaving and he had to paint a rosy picture financially to get them all to stay.

So what does Swofford do? He says a whole lot of nothing over and over claiming they are doing their due diligence, saying ESPN was doing the same thing, and saying he believes a network will one day happen, and after the ACC GOR was signed, he changes the line to he believes an ACC will happen years down the road, just be patient.

And you're 100% sure an ACCN will happen by 2018?

Fletch,
Love the optimism, but I don't believe in Swofford and been hearing for years it is coming. Don't buy it, Even if it does, I doubt is has significant revenue. I suspect it will look like a shadow of the SEC network.....will ESPN hire 20 plus ACC ex players and media like they did with SEC, will their media push it, etc etc. ESPN treats ACC like red head step child now...what changes?

(05-30-2015 11:45 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 11:39 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 11:34 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 11:05 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Oh and do not forget about this crazy NC State packman 1981 (He was the one who announced the ND was joining the ACC in all but FB six months before it happened)

He recently posted on Feb 28 2015....

Pack Fans:

Heard from a very credible source that ND will join ACC in FB in 2016 in exchange for NBC hosting the ACC TV Network. Not sure about split of revenue for existing NBC home ND FB games. Also NBC will buy out Raycom's share of ACC inventory. Will try to confirm this with another source this week. Can share this as I was not asked to keep it confidential.

'81

Link provided below...

http://www.scout.com/college/north-carol...6190?s=178

And why does Raycom own any ACC inventory? Because they bought it from ESPN who owns the rights to all ACC inventory.

So ABC/ESPN who are owned by Disney are going to turn over those rights to NBC and allow them to make money off the ACC inventory they own?

Didn't buy it when it was originally linked on the ACC boards back in February and I'm not buying it now. Until someone can reasonably explain why ABC/ESPN/Disney would benefit by assisting a competitor. A competitor by the way that they along with FOX conspired to keep out of the college athletics arena when they both overpaid the B12 and PAC to prevent NBC from getting them.

Btw, this doesn't rule out the possibility of an ACCN, just not one jointly owned with NBC.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah...not buying it either until more clarity. Not impossible but on the surface it doesn't make sense.

I could see Notre Dame coming into the ACC and keeping their NBC home games but ESPN wouldn't send other stuff over unless it was Tier 2 stuff.

Not that ND is joining the ACC full anway, but if they did...

Nope. Don't see that at all either. ND's value is their home football games. ESPN already owns everything else except for ND hockey.

No way will Disney allow ND to join the ACC full in football and allow NBC to keep the home football games.

Best the ACC is going to get out of ND is 6 games. That would add one more game to the ESPN ACC inventory every other year.

Cheers,
Neil

Respectfully.......

I sure as hell hope that never happens.

An ACC Network is happening. Period. End of the discussion. Sorry this troubles the narrative of those of you who seem so damned certain that the ACC's going to be picked apart.

(05-30-2015 03:06 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  An ACC Network is happening. Period. End of the discussion. Sorry this troubles the narrative of those of you who seem so damned certain that the ACC's going to be picked apart.

Okay you've made your assertion. Now back it up!!!

The ACC is home to the collection of largest media markets? It's been publicly addressed already several times?

(05-30-2015 03:34 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  The ACC is home to the collection of largest media markets? It's been publicly addressed already several times?

The ACC is home to the collection of largest, and most underutilized, media markets. Your saturation numbers for ACC events within your footprint viewing audience is one of the poorest in the nation. It is very regional with few exceptions like F.S.U..

It has been publicly addressed several times and each time it is a wait, wait, wait, I promise it's coming. What isn't addressed are all of the snags that keep it from coming to fruition. So until we see some concrete data all we hear is wait, wait.

Personally I think the former has a great deal to do with the latter. If it was going to be a highly profitable venture ESPN would have already entered into it. You guys are 100% rights owned by the Mouse. It "could" and "should" have been a lot easier to accomplish than in any other conference, but rights were sublet...Oops! And, I might add sublet by the very party wise enough to be in the know, ESPN. Furthermore those rights were sublet to Raycom, a network close to the heart of your beloved leader. Why didn't Swoffy see the problem there??? Then Swoffy's baby boy sublet them to a network run by ESPN's rival FOX. Oops again! Why didn't the all knowing "ninja" see that coming???

To an outsider the whole fiasco is either an absurd comedy of incompetence, or deliberate sabotage. Either way, "Lu-ccc-yyy! You've got some 'splaining to do!!!

Again what likely happened is that ESPN said not yet to a network and Swofford's kid sublet the rights to cover up via complication the failed promise of a network. Now that's how I see it. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But the truth I'm sure would be even more entertaining than my speculation.

So, I wait on the truth. Why? Because Swofford isn't that stupid or incompetent, his son did not act alone, and there is a berg under this ice cube!

(05-30-2015 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 03:06 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  An ACC Network is happening. Period. End of the discussion. Sorry this troubles the narrative of those of you who seem so damned certain that the ACC's going to be picked apart.

Okay you've made your assertion. Now back it up!!!

Rumor is the will be more of an update as to the status when the ACC kickoff at Pinehurst.

ESPN has only recently gotten fully into the whole "Conference Network" thing to begin with, though. Admittedly there are a few more bugs to sort out with the ACC than with the SEC, but also too the SEC is also an admittedly bigger brand. Come Hoops time however, the ACC is 2nd to none (especially with the fall of the former Big East). ESPN now owns the rights to the most recognized football conference (SEC) and the most recognized basketball conference (ACC). I look for them to work to smooth out those bugs and make this a reality. You'd be fooling yourself to think that the ACC's not profitable. It'd certainly be far more profitable than an entire network dedicate to one program that's not entirely on an ascent back to it's former days (LHN).

(05-30-2015 03:55 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  ESPN has only recently gotten fully into the whole "Conference Network" thing to begin with, though. Admittedly there are a few more bugs to sort out with the ACC than with the SEC, but also too the SEC is also an admittedly bigger brand. Come Hoops time however, the ACC is 2nd to none (especially with the fall of the former Big East). ESPN now owns the rights to the most recognized football conference (SEC) and the most recognized basketball conference (ACC). I look for them to work to smooth out those bugs and make this a reality. You'd be fooling yourself to think that the ACC's not profitable. It'd certainly be far more profitable than an entire network dedicate to one program that's not entirely on an ascent back to it's former days (LHN).

Hence the repeated rumors of Texas to the ACC and the conversion of the LHN. We'll see.

(05-30-2015 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 03:06 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  An ACC Network is happening. Period. End of the discussion. Sorry this troubles the narrative of those of you who seem so damned certain that the ACC's going to be picked apart.

Okay you've made your assertion. Now back it up!!!

JR you and I both know the ACC works behind the scenes...it'll be announced when it is announced and I doubt we'll get more than 24-48 hrs heads up that something is coming...

That, coupled with Texas saying that IF they leave the BigXII it'd be to go East and not West...which, I firmly believe to be the case.

(05-30-2015 04:00 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  That, coupled with Texas saying that IF they leave the BigXII it'd be to go East and not West...which, I firmly believe to be the case.

Texas leans east...central time zone. It has always been that way.

UT will not be in the Pac12

(05-30-2015 04:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2015 03:06 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  An ACC Network is happening. Period. End of the discussion. Sorry this troubles the narrative of those of you who seem so damned certain that the ACC's going to be picked apart.

Okay you've made your assertion. Now back it up!!!

JR you and I both know the ACC works behind the scenes...it'll be announced when it is announced and I doubt we'll get more than 24-48 hrs heads up that something is coming...

They all work behind the scenes except for when they are sending messages, floating trial balloons, and bluffing. Slive had worked on Missouri for 2 years before it broke early due to a clerical error at the SEC headquarters. The time factor and the complicating business factors are the stall here. The motives for engaging what they did is very fuzzy. We'll see. I think the real snags are centered around Texas, the GOR's, and getting all of ESPN's cohorts on the same page, which includes the SEC, Texas, and possibly negotiations with the Big 10. The eventual story will be interesting.

I'm inclined to believe that the whole situation with unbundling could be playing a factor in things, too. What was once the lucrative thing to do, and is currently the best route, doesn't necessarily mean that it will be even 5 years down the line. If you had told me two years ago that we'd make the progress we've made in terms of unbundling cable services I would've called you a liar and laughed saying it'd never happen...yet, here we are. We're poised to make more progress in that direction in the next few years coming up as well. I think that has everyone wanting to more ease into this right now as oppose to jumping headlong into it. If bundling is here to stay however, coupling the ACCN with the SECN and perhaps ESPNU would be really lucrative for ESPN. Best basketball, best football, and a little something else for both parties. You'd hit damn near all of your East Coast media markets by having them both on TVs.

(05-30-2015 03:55 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  ESPN has only recently gotten fully into the whole "Conference Network" thing to begin with, though. Admittedly there are a few more bugs to sort out with the ACC than with the SEC, but also too the SEC is also an admittedly bigger brand. Come Hoops time however, the ACC is 2nd to none (especially with the fall of the former Big East). ESPN now owns the rights to the most recognized football conference (SEC) and the most recognized basketball conference (ACC). I look for them to work to smooth out those bugs and make this a reality. You'd be fooling yourself to think that the ACC's not profitable. It'd certainly be far more profitable than an entire network dedicate to one program that's not entirely on an ascent back to it's former days (LHN).

RinR,

To be profitable, you first need content. Where would an ACCN get it's content? If the ACC buys back its tier 3 rights, that gets you some content, but not nearly enough. A key point everyone keeps forgetting is the SEC leveraged the 14 new conference games created by the inclusion of TAMA and Mizzou to get more conference game content so some could be put on the SECN. In contract, the ACC just sold the extra content of the Syracuse and PITT additions into the pool with the rest of the conference games for a small per school bump. The ACC did not leverage the extra conference games into a conference network so they do not have conference games to put on an ACCN. So again, where would the ACC get its content to put on an ACCN?

(05-30-2015 04:00 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  That, coupled with Texas saying that IF they leave the BigXII it'd be to go East and not West...which, I firmly believe to be the case.

Why would the ACC need Texas when we have UCONN? Oops, I've said too much...

I think Texas to the ACC makes some sense, but I'm not in the boat of those that believe it's going to happen either. That being said, all parties have virtually admitted to having had previous talks so...who knows? I'd damn sure take them and, say, Baylor in a heart beat.