nzmorange
Heisman
Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location: |
RE: Cincinnati
(08-30-2015 10:59 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: (08-30-2015 03:34 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: (08-30-2015 03:21 AM)Kaplony Wrote: Then you are one of the many fools who actually believe we will have a profitable network.
I'm in the camp that believes if we were to pull that off then ESPN would have paired the SEC and ACC networks together to maximize their profits.
ESPN knows it's going to cost them a fortune to buy back the rights that the ACC forced them to give Raycom and they know that the potential viewership of a conference consisting of four private all-sports members and a fifth private member who is only a member in the sports that the majority of their fans don't care about isn't going to sell a lot of subscriptions.
So go ahead and explain to me how a potential ACC Network is going to be a big enough cash cow to draw an SEC team away from an already more profitable conference than we can get in the best of circumstances.
I would say I'm skeptical and on the fence as to the likelihood.
Regarding where the profit is ..... simple.
ACC: FL, GA, SC, [NC, VA, DC, KY, PA, NY, MA]
SEC: FL, GA, SC, [TX, MO, TN, LA, AR, MS, AL]
Which has more TV sets to get subscriptions from at the in-conference rate? I'd say the ACC, even giving the SEC the generous benefit of the whole of Texas (El Paso DGAF about TAMU). If that's not the case then WTF are we doing? That's the entire purpose of adding Pitt, Cuse, and BC. If that isn't the case, they should be booted and it is time to either merge with the Big 12 South or push for a league-esk megaconference.
This advantage is offset in the short term by ESPN bundling the SECN with their cable renewal of ESPN and ESPN2. (Missing the timing on this is another stain on Swofford beyond his original botched expansion and his dealings in UNC academic fraud.) In the long run, that could be neutralized. But if ESPN is going to hitch its wagon full tilt to the SEC and the SECN ... then again ... WTF are we doing partnering with ESPN? At the end of GOR we should go all in with Fox, FS1, and FS2 and launch a channel through them that can be bundled with their own offerings come time for cable renewal as well.
The whole population argument only works if an ACCN - that isn't even announced as officially being in the process of created - is available in as many homes as the SECN. The SECN is in 90 million homes. It has bigger fanbases and a better reputation than the ACC. It was also bundled with current ESPN properties when they were up for renegotiations with the cable companies. Is the ACC really going to have an equal network in terms of total homes as the SECN, if the ACC ever gets a network? I highly doubt it. And with that, the revenue projections plummet. If the revenue was there the network would already be here.
BINGO!
Random discussions over state sizes, market boundaries, and public v. private are dumb. It all comes down to interest, and that's where the ACC comes up short. We don't have as many fans or compelling contests.
And to GTS' post, in no particular order, BC was added 1. to get to 12 and have an ACCCG, 2. because BC football was formidable throughout the 90's and early-mid 00's, and 3. academics.
SU was added for its 1. fan support, 2. basketball, 3. football history/promise of being good again (maybe), 4. academics, and 5. rivalry with BC, which was on an island
(I doubt lax was a major factor, but I also doubt that it hurt)
Pitt was added for its 1. academics, 2. football (decent teams at the time, good history, good rivalries, and good recruiting, especially for NE teams), 3. basketball, and 4. to keep an even number of schools.
|
|
