(03-04-2016 11:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 10:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...bundling changes elasticities, not underlying economics. They bundled the content because the covariances of demand of the individual content were such that they tend to balance any randomness in the amount that target customers were willing to pay.

OK, I have no idea what those first 2 sentences mean. I was trained in computer programming and engineering, not economic theory. I do notice that you did not offer an alternative value to my $1.00 per month "best guess" for an ACC Network. So what this whole thread sounds like is:

You: Mark's methodology is "dead wrong" so the result probably is too.
Me: Then what's the right answer?
You: Complicated economic and financial theory.
Me: So how do you know I'm wrong then?
You: I know complicated economic and financial theory.
Both of us:

FIFY

Seriously though, your numbers don't pass the smell test, and, like I said, it's based on a very flawed methodology.

My best guess is to look at the money that they're making their conference now, account for the facts that the ACC sells more content than the AAC, the ACC didn't reduce its payout as much for publicity as the AAC, and the ACC has a longer contract than the AAC, and that's how much they would bring into the new conference. If i had to give a number I'd say $20-30 mm total. Divide that by whatever base you want to get the allocation rate for that base.

PM me an email address and I'll send an excel doc that illustrates the first 2 sentences in actual numbers.

(03-04-2016 11:19 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 12:26 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 12:08 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 11:09 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 06:39 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The potential flaw in Mark's analysis of an ACCN is the assumption that the majority of subscribers in states like NY, PA, MA, and GA would pay full price for it.

The strength of Syracuse, Pitt, BC, and GT is likely not enough to get that accomplished.

Right now, the only three states where an ACCN has a shot of getting the vast majority of TVHHs within the in-state rate are NC, VA, and FLA.

And this assumes the current paradigm continues. Which is also doubtful since some form of cord-cutting is going on as we speak.

Cheers,
Neil

From the blog piece - "Temple would be good, but the ACC is already in Pennsylvania, so let's shelve that idea for now."

Pitt may be in the state of Pennsylvania but that is not going to get a potential ACC network on the air in the #4 TV market in the country - Philadelphia.

Judging by attendance numbers when the opposing team doesn't bring the majority of the fans neither is Temple.

Our attendance needs to keep improving but we averaged 32K not including PSU and ND - which is higher than 3 ACC schools and about the same as Syracuse. However, I definitely saw a lot more Temple t-shirt fans this year. Just like you with Clemson........

Congrats. Call us back when you double that for about a decade. We already have enough bad football teams with low attendance that don't carry their market, we don't need anymore.

We must carry something since our TV ratings are very good in this market. A G5 program getting Gameday is something that doesn't happen very often. And if you want to say it was because of ND, that helped but they certainly did not go to several other P5 programs when they hosted ND.

We also got over a million people for a Friday night ESPN2 game vs. SMU.

And ESPN has already selected Temple for a Thursday night ESPN game and two ESPN2 Friday night games this coming fall against other AAC teams. That will put us on primetime more than many ACC programs.

But keep continuing your odd obsession with Temple. I will never understand how a guy who became a Clemson fan by buying a t-shirt bashes Temple like you do.

(03-04-2016 11:05 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 12:26 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Just like you with Clemson........

Don't say you. He went to Newberry College, whatever that is.

I only reply when he continues his odd obsession with bashing Temple. But if you see the post you list above, my prior sentence points out how Temple added several t-shirt fans this past year (like he is with Clemson since he went to something called Newberry).

<sigh> We've been through why I went to Newberry and my long family ties to Clemson many, many times before. If you need a refresher I suggest you use the search function above as I'm not wasting my time going through it again.

But I guess when you don't have anything to counter the facts you go ahead and attack the poster instead. Just a word of warning that only works on posters like me and Nole around here. Do it to anybody else and the biased mods will bring you to heel pretty quick.



As for Temple to the ACC, it's nowhere close to happening. The people who make these decisions have done the research and outside of message boards Temple isn't even in the apocalyptic scenarios when the list of potential membership candidates comes up. The negatives far, far, far outweigh the positives for the ACC, enough so that Temple joins the list of schools where if they are added to the ACC Clemson will explore our options to leave to protect the lifeblood of our athletics program.

I must ask you visiting fans to remember that you are visitors here. Please refrain from derailing threads and attacking ACC fans. No more warnings.

The ACC brass will need to revisit the exposure angle and either get a zero blackout policy for ACC games streamed on ESPN3 or get more money since they left some on the table for more exposure.

(03-04-2016 07:30 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  The ACC brass will need to revisit the exposure angle and either get a zero blackout policy for ACC games streamed on ESPN3 or get more money since they left some on the table for more exposure.

I think most of the blackout problems are with the games Raycom sold to Fox for their RSN. Here in Louisville the problem is that our ACC games where on Fox South while Fox Cincinnati serves the Louisville area. To get Fox South here locally, at least with some providers, you have to purchase an additional sports package. My question to Fox is, why aren't Louisville games on the network that serves Louisville? Additionally, with Fox having the game, ESPN3 wasn't allowed to air the games either.

(03-04-2016 04:58 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  I must ask you visiting fans to remember that you are visitors here. Please refrain from derailing threads and attacking ACC fans. No more warnings.

Does that include him continuously trashing my alma mater, or is it cool because he never attended the school he roots for?

(03-04-2016 09:38 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 04:58 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  I must ask you visiting fans to remember that you are visitors here. Please refrain from derailing threads and attacking ACC fans. No more warnings.

Does that include him continuously trashing my alma mater, or is it cool because he never attended the school he roots for?

He's an ACC fan posting on an ACC board. Just be glad that you are not a Syracuse fan. If you don't like what you read here, then don't read here. Where else is he supposed to share his opinion on Temple to the ACC?? Also we don't allow threads to deteriorate into smack fests like the AAC board.

Dumb thread built on obvious bullshitt.

Temple fans:

Find yourselves back to the AAC board!