Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
Author Message
hawghiggs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,792
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 11:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:54 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:28 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:12 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The house of Mouse will still get paid by them. It doesn't matter how the content is delivered. It's the content itself that people pay for. You think for a second that people wouldn't go where all the sports channels, Disney shows, Marvel movies and soon to be Star Wars shows are? If the providers didn't offer the house of mouse content. They would die a slow death.

I'm not entirely sure about that. The fee for just ESPN is only $1 away from a monthly Netflix subscription. I'm sure by the time you're done adding ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, SEC Network, Disney, Toon Disney, Disney Junior, Disney XD, ABC, ABC Family, and anything I'm forgetting .... you're probably talking more like two to three times a Netflix subscription. And out of alllllllllll that crap the only thing I'd pay for if it didn't have ACC content on it would be ESPN Goal Line.

Netflix has more than enough kiddo content. I'd drop cable like its hot if I could get an ACC streaming service like MLB.tv.
That's the thing. In 2016,Netflix starts carrying all of Disney's older content. A deal that Disney actually took less money for. Since that time. It's been my belief that Disney actually wants everyone to move to an online format. So it you take it one step further. Disney most likely won't sell an independent ACC network. They want to would force us into a Netflix like subscription service. A service they can sell world wide. Much like Netflix is doing.

If Disney thinks they can ask people to pay $50/mo for all of its content channels, just to get at ESPN and channels like LHN, SECN, ACCN, etc. ... very few people are going to buy that.

Even $30/mo just for the sports channels, is asking a lot.

I'd pay $15/mo for ESPN & ESPN2, then another $5/mo for the SECN (if I were a SEC fan...). Probably not worth much more than that, to me.
They aren't going to ask you for just those channels. They are going to ask you for $50 per month for those channels plus ABC network, The Disney channels, The whatever channel covers Marvel and Star Wars content, and any other channel they can come up with. And the thing about it is. We all will pay for it. Because what's the alternative? Fox and its network of channels. Which do you think you would really want? I know what I'll end up doing. And that's taking a knee and bowing to Sith Lord Mickey. Because what exactly am I going to do? Not let my kids watch all the things they like, or maybe I can stop watching sports.
07-19-2015 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #42
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 12:46 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  They aren't going to ask you for just those channels. They are going to ask you for $50 per month for those channels plus ABC network, The Disney channels, The whatever channel covers Marvel and Star Wars content, and any other channel they can come up with. And the thing about it is. We all will pay for it. Because what's the alternative? Fox and its network of channels. Which do you think you would really want? I know what I'll end up doing. And that's taking a knee and bowing to Sith Lord Mickey. Because what exactly am I going to do? Not let my kids watch all the things they like, or maybe I can stop watching sports.


$50/mo for just Mickey's crap? Yea, I'd do without. I'd go to Sports Bars to watch the GT games. At that point you've actually made going to the game in person cheaper for 2/3 of college football.
07-19-2015 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
The extra content on ESPN exists for the sole reason of having cheap content that can make a profit on based on habit viewers tuning in.

If ESPN dumped the 30 for 30 series, no one is calling their cable network to try to get rid of ESPN. The reality is ESPN makes a profit airing a 30 for 30 multiple times and then gets "free" money from Netflix.

What I find amusing is that ESPN's carriage revenue falls from people cord cutting and this starts off people chortling about the impending end of ESPN or worrying how their school is going to keep paying ridiculous amounts of money.

Over the past decade there have been a smattering of articles where ESPN honchos have explained their interest in the web, apps, and online delivery because that was where things were heading, ESPN's game plan the past decade has been about maximizing profit today and being in position for the new model.

If ESPN goes to a straight subscription model they don't need all 94 million homes to follow them. They only need about 22 million.

I'm only making a guess but based on what we know ESPN is doing and what I think is the logical method of dealing with it.

1. They are going to continue to offer a carriage fee based channel concept. There will be a significant number of consumers who like this. Only difference is that in addition to cable and satellite, now internet bundlers will be players. AOL still has 3% of its peak number of dial-up customers still subscribing to dial-up even though the alternatives (if available) are far superior. Here the simplicity of I pay X and I get these channels will always find a market. It may not be 94 million homes but I bet it is closer to 50 million than it is 10 million.
2. They will continue to offer a carriage fee based internet service (ESPN3)
3. They will offer numerous subscription packages such as the ESPN channels, conference specific, league specific, sport specific, maybe team specific, one day packages, multi-day, month long, annual.

The last piece is cracking the nut of online ads. Right now you make more for a TV ad for similar eyeballs reached than desktop computers, and more for regular computer than mobile. That's totally messed up. Mobile should be most valuable because so much more data is available about the viewer, likewise desktop should be better than TV. Already Hulu is doing more geotargeting of ads. When I'm home I may see a local campaign ad or local car dealer. Traveling I may see different sellers. Eventually those numbers have to flip because online will be able to deliver almost exclusively to target consumers. Once that gets ironed out ad dollars likely explode.

But there is nothing going on that ESPN hasn't been saying was going to happen eventually.
07-19-2015 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #44
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 10:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You're probably too young to remember that Bowden chose the ACC because he said it was the easiest path to the championship.

IMO no matter what Bowden said, he pushed FSU to choose the ACC over the SEC because he was trying to get more career wins than Paterno.
07-19-2015 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 11:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 08:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 01:57 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think the ACC schools signed the GOR because conference realignment was moving to fast for them. University BOTs and Presidents are deliberative and want time to study options, debate and discuss decision points and reach consensus. Conference realignment decisions are 50 year decisions. During the last go round, I think the ACC schools wanted to preserve the status quo for a period while they consider their options. The GOR provided a convenient way to do it.

Live sports is the lifeblood of ESPN. The BTN and SECn are huge hits. The PACn not so much because without an ESPN/Fox TV partner, they have trouble getting carried by local cable networks. The ACCn will also be a profitable venture, with ESPN's contacts getting it on cable networks very easily.

The problem for ESPN is that starting the network requires a huge capital investment in negotiating carriage agreements, buying equipment, hiring and training staff, retrofitting minor sports venues for TV coverage and a host of other costs. ESPN just fronted those expenses for the SECn and I assume they want time to recoup them before starting the process all over with an ACCn. But ESPN will almost certainly create the ACCn. It will be too profitable to turn down.

Much has been made about cord cutters and ala cart programming, but regardless of the delivery channel, the company that owns the rights to live sports will find lots of subscribers, whether they go via the internet, via a subscription service or via traditional cable. The economics might be a bit different, but ESPN and Fox will both come out just fine.

All true except the SECN's retro fitting, training, and start up costs were not fronted by ESPN for any time length that affects their ability to do the same again. The SEC schools paid that. Each school had withheld from them this year 9.5 million from the total prior to their disbursement check of 31.2 million. This Fall and next Spring will be the same. Then our overhead is covered. In 2017 each member school will see that money reflected in the check that will exceed 40 million plus.

Would the SEC be willing to give up its partnership with CBS and go "all in" with ESPN to get to that $40M/school/year mark?

There is a school of thought that thinks the eventual death of the traditional pay-TV model will cripple ESPN in ways that will leave sports networks under FOX, CBS and NBC unhindered (because they have nationwide OTA capabilities).

We are already there (40 million). It's just a matter of clearing the final overhead reduction this year. And Bison no matter what happens with ESPN the SEC will remain the most marketable of college football products.

Would the SEC be willing to give up its partnership with CBS and go "all in" with ESPN in order to maximize its (short-term) revenue?

I don't disagree that the most TV sets tune-in to watch SEC conference games. But that doesn't automatically make that audience the most desired market. Buying power has something to do with it, too.

Bison, the buying power is already there as well. There is a chance that when CBS's T1 is up that the SEC is going to bid that out. NBC, ABC, or anyone else interested in that time slot with the terms already established which gives the SECN second pick every week for that 2:30 CST slot.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2015 01:43 PM by JRsec.)
07-19-2015 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 01:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 10:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You're probably too young to remember that Bowden chose the ACC because he said it was the easiest path to the championship.

IMO no matter what Bowden said, he pushed FSU to choose the ACC over the SEC because he was trying to get more career wins than Paterno.

Amen to that! My wife and I once laughed at Paterno and Bowden hobbling along on the sidelines and said that any week we expected to see both of them lead their teams onto the field behind the head coach's scooter chair!
07-19-2015 01:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ren.hoek Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,361
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Clemson
Location:
Post: #47
Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting...
(07-19-2015 12:53 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  My running assumption since the ACC GOR was signed was that it was signed by those that had B1G options (FSU & GT) because they were promised a network. UVA & UNC had SEC & B1G options but being the old guard would have signed the grant just to keep the league together. For their signature each school received a 2 Million per year bump as consideration. 2 Million seemed like an extremely low number but if a network were upcoming then the 2 Mil was gravy.

Given that ESPN owns all of the ACC rights similar to the SEC rights (Sans CBS) the SEC network seems like a good comparison but the SEC isn't apples to apples. The mix of schools is the most obvious difference with 6/15 private school in the ACC and the depth and passion of football fans clearly is in favor of the SEC. The ACC does have an advantage is hoops and the non-revs but those don't pay the bills.

The ACC rightfully claims to have the most population of any conference in its footprint with Florida, Georgia, S Carolina, N Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts all having an ACC institution located within each of those states, however it is slightly presumptuous to say all of those states will be carried by the institution in their respective state.

Enter ESPN and their ample muscle which by all accounts was used to ensure SEC/ESPN network carriage across the country. The ACC would expect similar treatment no doubt and I'd argue they would need it more so than the SEC to get carriage, especially in the Northern states and Kentucky (outside of Louisville).

The problem now facing the league is risk aversion and belt tightening at ESPN. ESPN already owns ACC content, all of the popular contests are on one of their present outlets, there are substantial upfront costs, and the LHN is a reminder that not all ventures are profitable. So what is ESPNs motivation to put themselves out there when their business model is under attack by cord cutters and a la carte "ers"? Shifting attractive content to an ACC network would syphon games from the flagship and 3rd tier ACC games are not 3rd tier SEC games so they may not rate well.

I don't believe any of us reading this board have read the ACC Grant of rights but I would speculate that there may be an out clause if a network isn't coming by 2017ish. Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami share states with an SEC school and it will become more difficult to compete when they are cashing checks 20+ million more than you every year. Money isnt everything but it doesnt hurt when it comes to building facilities, retaining top coaches, recruiting budgets, etc.

Maybe I'm overreacting to ESPN in panic mode but if a la carte becomes a reality and/or cord cutting continues to accelerate we might all be looking at a very different sports world in the next decade. The Big 12 and ACC seem the most vulnerable and while the Big 12 cant have a network with the LHN, the ACC network may never get off of the ground especially if Disney is demanding ESPN cut costs.

To answer your question...no.

#wishfulthinking
07-19-2015 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 12:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:58 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  No thanks.

Having experienced both conferences, going back to that (even with NU, Ark and LSU) would be a huge letdown (which is why none of us would agree to it).


[Image: oen91.jpg]


Big ESPY Southeast Coast Conference HornNetwork™ ESPN

Division 1-A "Slaw on my Sweet Sauced BBQ Division":
Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Kentucky, Louisville

Division 1-B "Sweat your Ass off in August Division"
Clemson, USC-East, Georgia Tech, (THW)Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Auburn

Division 2-A ": "Beef and Dreamland Ribs BBQ Division"
Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, Arkansas, TAMU

Division 2-B : "Ball-less Bull Division"
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

I despise the names so....FIFY.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2015 01:55 PM by JRsec.)
07-19-2015 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
Arkansas is slaw and pork but not sweet sauce.
07-19-2015 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 01:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Arkansas is slaw and pork but not sweet sauce.
I like slaw, just not on my barbecue and I don't care for sweet sauce. It's okay on a 1/4 of chicken on the backyard grill but that's about it.
07-19-2015 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 08:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 02:25 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 01:31 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The SECN has been a big increase in money for ESPN. Why wouldn't they try to do the same but with many more TV sets for the ACC?

The very last thing that ESPN wants to do, if your hypothetical opt out clause exists, is to motivate the ACC to use it. Fox has been chomping at the bit to get a major conference on FS1, FS2, and FOX OTA. NBC and Comcast have been bidding too. The ACC has long partnered with Raycom, so OTA isn't a new thing for them.

To me the real wildcards that may shake things up are:
1) ESPN uses the Disney connection to launch its own dedicated sports OTA syndication system, piggybacking off ABC. Viewership and advertising will explode, and they'll actually be REQUIRED to be carried over cable still (but without the gaudy rate fee).
2) ESPN pushes everybody together into one collectively bargained TV package. This opens the door for ANOTHER round of large scale conference shuffling, as suddenly conference affiliation becomes meaningless for TV dollars and money at the gate from regional games of interest becomes more important. Areas of movement here would be the northern ACC and B1G ....... the southern ACC and SEC East ....... the SEC West and Big 12.
3) A major player makes a push against ESPN at its own game, undercutting it and its prices and picking up at least one major P5 conference (OTA and multiple cable carriage channels ... that'd be Fox or a NBC/Comcast joint bid)
4) Verizon wins its lawsuit with ESPN, paving with the way for large scale industry wide semi-unbundled streamed TV offerings ... effectively killing ESPN's model as it presently stands. ESPN would probably file for Chapter 11 and the current contracts would all have to be renegotiated as ESPN couldn't pay them any more.


Your wildcard #4 is the biggest wildcard IMO. The whole model of cable (not just ESPN but everybody) would implode overnight. Rewind 5 years and ignoring the LHN failure, let's assume ESPN could have rammed down the throats of carriers an ACC Network. With a la carte being a real possibility... only real BC fans would care for an ACC network in Boston. If you lose the subscribers that don't watch but still pay and only sports fans get sports packages... how viable are any of these networks? Sports fans gain the most with the current cable setup so we would obviously lose the most with the destruction of the current cable system.

Back to college sports and the ACC. If ESPN can't muscle carriage because of a la carte then the proposition becomes MUCH riskier. The individual populatity of each team (not the market they are located in or the state they are in) would drive profitability. In a scenario like that, huge state schools have an enormous advantage over private schools if for no other reason than they are cranking out far more alumni every year.

As a side note wildcard #1 is creative and I think could have some legs, but I don't think that dog would hunt unless and until ESPN declares bankruptcy.

ESPN is suing Verizon, not the other way around.

And ESPN will win, easily. Verizon has zero claim to have left ESPN off the basic tier of whatever they're calling the new bundles. ESPN will win and that means that Verizon has to include it in the new bundles.

Point is: ESPN can force itself into any basic bundle that any Pay-TV service is offering. Because if the service wants to provide ESPN at all (ie, as part of an optional sports bundle), they ESPN will give them the standard ultimatum of "include us in the basic bundle, or you don't get us at all."

Even Sling has ESPN.


ESPN have to do some restructering to get cable companies to accept new channels.
Turn the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12 and SEC Network into a HBO like bundle. You could charge more for it like HBO does since it is a speciality channels. Fans of these conferences can pay extra for it, and not raise the price on others who really do not want these channels. This would make cable companies happier because people won't cut the cord who could not afford it. Drop ESPN, and drop some of the stupid shows like Mike and Mike, Sports Nation and all that junk. Run shows that cover each of the sports. You do have live events 24 hours a day as well where it depends where they are played at. With football games in Japan, Hawaii, Australia and all that now and in the future could put content on tv.
07-19-2015 02:03 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 12:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:58 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  No thanks.

Having experienced both conferences, going back to that (even with NU, Ark and LSU) would be a huge letdown (which is why none of us would agree to it).


[Image: oen91.jpg]


Big ESPY Southeast Coast Conference HornNetwork™ ESPN

Division 1-A "Leader Atlantic":
Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Kentucky, Louisville

Division 1-B "Legend Atlantic:
Clemson, USC-East, Georgia Tech, (THW)Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Auburn

Division 2-A "Leader Coastal":
Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, Arkansas, TAMU

Division 2-B "Legend Coastal":
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Well sure, thats a custom made division for GT with Auburn, Clemson, UGA, Florida and FSU all on the schedule. Would do wonders for attendance at BD. But for everyone else, thats a pretty sucky set up that ruins a good thing.

Maybe just have GT reapply for membership on their own without bringing half the ACC and Big 12 with them.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2015 02:16 PM by 10thMountain.)
07-19-2015 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,815
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 219
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicago Metro
Post: #53
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
I am not following most of your logic.

The ACC Network is established for overflow football and basketball games. When Louisville is playing NC State on ESPN2, North Carolina is playing Virginia Tech on the ACC Network. When Syracuse is playing Duke on ESPN, Notre Dame is playing Boston College on the ACC Network.

The ACC Network is established to give schools constant exposure and hype.

Don't forget that Duke basketball pulls more revenue than most large college football programs. As the SEC sleeps through the basketball schedule, the ACC is hot and has fans who will watch their games.

The ACC already runs a network on Youtube and on Apple TV, too. It doesn't take too much imagination to see how the network can run and be profitable.

(If ESPN doesn't deliver, don't rule out NBC and NBCSN. NBC has rights to Notre Dame football home games, the Olympics, a prime time NFL games, the English Premiere League, and golf. Good programming that can fill 8 months out of the year, like ACC football and basketball, is attractive.)
07-19-2015 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #54
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 02:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe just have GT reapply for membership on their own without bringing half the ACC and Big 12 with them.

Actually I think you'd find that'd go over well with most of the teams on there. And Mizzou could stop embarrassing the SEC East by winning it every year ... despite being one of the most westerly teams in the conference. They'd be back with the Kansas duo where they belong.

And we're not interested in the SEC if we can't bring Clemson, UNC, and Duke along with us. I like getting to play Auburn and TN again ... but not enough to throw the other teams away.
07-19-2015 06:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 06:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 02:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Maybe just have GT reapply for membership on their own without bringing half the ACC and Big 12 with them.

Actually I think you'd find that'd go over well with most of the teams on there. And Mizzou could stop embarrassing the SEC East by winning it every year ... despite being one of the most westerly teams in the conference. They'd be back with the Kansas duo where they belong.

And we're not interested in the SEC if we can't bring Clemson, UNC, and Duke along with us. I like getting to play Auburn and TN again ... but not enough to throw the other teams away.

I suppose there is a chance that GT ends up back in the SEC even without the wild realignment of divisions. I wouldn't have thought it due to market duplication, but if the SEC can get some NC and VA schools then that sets the table.
07-19-2015 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #56
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 06:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I suppose there is a chance that GT ends up back in the SEC even without the wild realignment of divisions. I wouldn't have thought it due to market duplication, but if the SEC can get some NC and VA schools then that sets the table.


It would have happened in the (early 80's?) when Curry was head coach. Dooley offered to sponsor GT back in, along with Bear Bryant who wanted to bury the hatchet for his treachery of not showing up to vote for the scholarship rule change. Dodd, still AD at this time, said the Mississippi schools would vote against it and that was that.
07-19-2015 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 07:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 06:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I suppose there is a chance that GT ends up back in the SEC even without the wild realignment of divisions. I wouldn't have thought it due to market duplication, but if the SEC can get some NC and VA schools then that sets the table.


It would have happened in the (early 80's?) when Curry was head coach. Dooley offered to sponsor GT back in, along with Bear Bryant who wanted to bury the hatchet for his treachery of not showing up to vote for the scholarship rule change. Dodd, still AD at this time, said the Mississippi schools would vote against it and that was that.
That's a good story on Dodd's part but I don't know if I believe he was being genuine. In the early 80's the Mississippi schools were far from contentious. In fact they were downright humble, and for the most part continue to be. Still with the academic issues being stressed these days I think both as an academic move and as a defensive strategy should things ever break loose, that Tech could come back in with a group.
07-19-2015 07:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 12:46 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:54 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:28 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:12 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The house of Mouse will still get paid by them. It doesn't matter how the content is delivered. It's the content itself that people pay for. You think for a second that people wouldn't go where all the sports channels, Disney shows, Marvel movies and soon to be Star Wars shows are? If the providers didn't offer the house of mouse content. They would die a slow death.

I'm not entirely sure about that. The fee for just ESPN is only $1 away from a monthly Netflix subscription. I'm sure by the time you're done adding ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, SEC Network, Disney, Toon Disney, Disney Junior, Disney XD, ABC, ABC Family, and anything I'm forgetting .... you're probably talking more like two to three times a Netflix subscription. And out of alllllllllll that crap the only thing I'd pay for if it didn't have ACC content on it would be ESPN Goal Line.

Netflix has more than enough kiddo content. I'd drop cable like its hot if I could get an ACC streaming service like MLB.tv.

That's the thing. In 2016,Netflix starts carrying all of Disney's older content. A deal that Disney actually took less money for. Since that time. It's been my belief that Disney actually wants everyone to move to an online format. So it you take it one step further. Disney most likely won't sell an independent ACC network. They want to would force us into a Netflix like subscription service. A service they can sell world wide. Much like Netflix is doing.

If Disney thinks they can ask people to pay $50/mo for all of its content channels, just to get at ESPN and channels like LHN, SECN, ACCN, etc. ... very few people are going to buy that.

Even $30/mo just for the sports channels, is asking a lot.

I'd pay $15/mo for ESPN & ESPN2, then another $5/mo for the SECN (if I were a SEC fan...). Probably not worth much more than that, to me.

They aren't going to ask you for just those channels. They are going to ask you for $50 per month for those channels plus ABC network, The Disney channels, The whatever channel covers Marvel and Star Wars content, and any other channel they can come up with. And the thing about it is. We all will pay for it. Because what's the alternative? Fox and its network of channels. Which do you think you would really want? I know what I'll end up doing. And that's taking a knee and bowing to Sith Lord Mickey. Because what exactly am I going to do? Not let my kids watch all the things they like, or maybe I can stop watching sports.

I'm not bowing and neither will most others, at that price.

So what if they're going to throw in a bunch of other crap that people don't want? That's exactly the thing that people despise about cable bundles in the first place.

They might as well agree to throw in the underwater basket weaving channel and the hippie weed smoking channel at $70/mo.


As I said, I'll pay $15/mo for ESPN & ESPN2 and then $5/mo additional for a conference network.
07-19-2015 10:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
(07-19-2015 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 11:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 08:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-19-2015 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  All true except the SECN's retro fitting, training, and start up costs were not fronted by ESPN for any time length that affects their ability to do the same again. The SEC schools paid that. Each school had withheld from them this year 9.5 million from the total prior to their disbursement check of 31.2 million. This Fall and next Spring will be the same. Then our overhead is covered. In 2017 each member school will see that money reflected in the check that will exceed 40 million plus.

Would the SEC be willing to give up its partnership with CBS and go "all in" with ESPN to get to that $40M/school/year mark?

There is a school of thought that thinks the eventual death of the traditional pay-TV model will cripple ESPN in ways that will leave sports networks under FOX, CBS and NBC unhindered (because they have nationwide OTA capabilities).

We are already there (40 million). It's just a matter of clearing the final overhead reduction this year. And Bison no matter what happens with ESPN the SEC will remain the most marketable of college football products.

Would the SEC be willing to give up its partnership with CBS and go "all in" with ESPN in order to maximize its (short-term) revenue?

I don't disagree that the most TV sets tune-in to watch SEC conference games. But that doesn't automatically make that audience the most desired market. Buying power has something to do with it, too.

Bison, the buying power is already there as well. There is a chance that when CBS's T1 is up that the SEC is going to bid that out. NBC, ABC, or anyone else interested in that time slot with the terms already established which gives the SECN second pick every week for that 2:30 CST slot.

Some buying power is there, I don't disagree. But to call yourselves the most desirable audience in the nation to advertisers means you need to have the most buying power.

ABC Sports is defunct. Anything sports related that shows on ABC broadcast is branded ESPN.

CBS you already have. That leaves FOX and NBC.
07-19-2015 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 449
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #60
RE: Does a retrenching ESPN make an ACC Network unlikely and the league a sitting duck?
For the 10,000th time, the ACC is doomed! Doomed I tell ye!
07-19-2015 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.