http://gridironnow.com/the-conference-tv...t-is-dead/

Some people said there was a clause for an ACC Network by a specific date. Other people said there was no such thing. Now we know the truth. There is a clause in the ESPN contract to have an ACC Network by 7/1/216. Since there will be no ACC Network by that date, the clause calls for a payment of an additional $45M a year to the ACC schools.

That means ESPN now has to pay more for content they already have rights to. WHich also means there will be no ACC Network in the form of the BTN or SEC Network.

Sorry to anyone that has been wanting an ACC Network, but it isn't going to happen.

This also means a Big 12 Network is HIGHLY Unlikely, which also means no expansion.

You are adding 2+2 and coming up with whatever number you choose to come up with before you begin adding those numbers.

I don't think any of these things are related to each other at all. The complications surrounding the launch of the ACC Network has nothing at all to do with the potential launch of the Big 12 Network. That is a University of Texas issue, not an ESPN or Fox or ACC issue. If Texas decided tomorrow that it wanted to convert the Longhorn Network into a B12 Network, I will guarantee you that the Big 12 would have its own television network, irrespective of what is happening with the ACC.

Also, I don't think the ACC's failure to launch a conference television network by July 1, 2016 necessarily means that they can't launch a network down the road. In fact, I still think it is highly likely that they will indeed launch a network - probably in 2018.

I just think you're reaching here. However, it is all good. People say the craziest bullshitt on this board all the time and pass it off as fact, so you are certainly in good company.

(03-15-2016 09:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  You are adding 2+2 and coming up with whatever number you choose to come up with.

I don't think any of these things are related to each other at all. The complications surrounding the launch of the ACC Network has nothing at all to do with the potential launch of the Big 12 Network. That is a University of Texas issue, not an ESPN or Fox or ACC issue.

Also, I don't think the fact that the ACC failing to launch a network by July 1, 2016 necessarily means that they can't launch a network down the road.

I just think you're reaching here. However, it is all good. People say the craziest bullshitt on this board all the time and pass it off as fact, so you are certainly in good company

I agree. A lot of extrapolating going on.

(03-15-2016 09:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  You are adding 2+2 and coming up with whatever number you choose to come up with.

I don't think any of these things are related to each other at all. The complications surrounding the launch of the ACC Network has nothing at all to do with the potential launch of the Big 12 Network. That is a University of Texas issue, not an ESPN or Fox or ACC issue.

Also, I don't think the fact that the ACC failing to launch a network by July 1, 2016 necessarily means that they can't launch a network down the road.

I just think you're reaching here. However, it is all good. People say the craziest bullshitt on this board all the time and pass it off as fact, so you are certainly in good company

Spend a minute and read the article.

Networks have no interest in anymore conference networks.

(03-15-2016 09:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  You are adding 2+2 and coming up with whatever number you choose to come up with.

I don't think any of these things are related to each other at all. The complications surrounding the launch of the ACC Network has nothing at all to do with the potential launch of the Big 12 Network.

If the issue is cord-cutting, and market saturation of high-subscription-fee sports networks, then the reasons for "No ACC network" have everything to do with "No Big 12 network."

If the ACC Network is a non-starter, when the ACC doesn't have LHN issues to deal with, then the Big 12 Network is especially dead.

(The ACC has Raycomm/Fox Sports Net issues, but those aren't that different from the Kansas and Oklahoma etc's Tier 3 packages)

Quote:Also, I don't think the fact that the ACC failing to launch a network by July 1, 2016 necessarily means that they can't launch a network down the road.

Well, the factors that push against an ACC network--cord-cutting, market saturation--aren't going away over time.

Now, if the issues with an ACC Network are more related to the original 2009 or so Swofford-ESPN-Raycom contract (remember the brouhaha when it emerged that Swofford's son works for Raycom?) then their issues are separate and distinct from the Big 12 issues, which are not the same as the PACnet issues (local and national feeds, etc).

The real question Big Ten people need to ask themselves is how long before BTN revenues flatten out and even start to drop thanks to cord cutting (remember, that money is NOT guaranteed).

Don't worry about the ACC just yet. The extra $45 million IS guaranteed, so that's the floor. Be sure that ESPN is motivated to find a way to turn that $45 M from a pure expense into an investment...

The money gap will be managed and, eventually, shrink. Bookmark this if you wish - I'm confident.

That's an important point. The Big 10 and SEC network aren't going to make 5 Million then 10 million then 20 Million in growth every few years.

Like ESPN's overall bottom line the numbers will flatten or even decrease.

I'm sure they'll still generate plenty of money, but it won't just keep growing. It's a saturated market.

That said I'm fine if the ACC gets the guaranteed money with the addition they are still working on additional revenue streams.

The ACC just can't take the money and stop. That's what happened in around 2009-2010 when the ACC took the money rather than the risk of the network

(03-15-2016 09:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The real question Big Ten people need to ask themselves is how long before BTN revenues flatten out and even start to drop thanks to cord cutting (remember, that money is NOT guaranteed).

Don't worry about the ACC just yet. The extra $45 million IS guaranteed, so that's the floor. Be sure that ESPN is motivated to find a way to turn that $45 M from a pure expense into an investment...

The money gap will be managed and, eventually, shrink. Bookmark this if you wish - I'm confident.

(03-15-2016 10:07 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  That's an important point. The Big 10 and SEC network aren't going to make 5 Million then 10 million then 20 Million in growth every few years.

Like ESPN's overall bottom line the numbers will flatten or even decrease.

I'm sure they'll still generate plenty of money, but it won't just keep growing. It's a saturated market.

That said I'm fine if the ACC gets the guaranteed money with the addition they are still working on additional revenue streams.

The ACC just take the money and stop. That's what happened in around 2009-2010 when the ACC took the money rather than the risk of the network

(03-15-2016 09:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The real question Big Ten people need to ask themselves is how long before BTN revenues flatten out and even start to drop thanks to cord cutting (remember, that money is NOT guaranteed).

Don't worry about the ACC just yet. The extra $45 million IS guaranteed, so that's the floor. Be sure that ESPN is motivated to find a way to turn that $45 M from a pure expense into an investment...

The money gap will be managed and, eventually, shrink. Bookmark this if you wish - I'm confident.

Yes revenue for those networks will level off. That is the maturity stage. BTN isn't at that stage yet.

You keep growing the revenue by expanding. So there is room for more potential growth in the revenue, but eventually it will top out and mature.

If the Big 10 and SEC are truly headed towards that goal then we are on the way to 2 conferences of 28-32 teams.

Just keep grabbing teams from the Big 10, Pac 12, and ACC that you don't share a region with.

(03-15-2016 10:23 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:07 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  That's an important point. The Big 10 and SEC network aren't going to make 5 Million then 10 million then 20 Million in growth every few years.

Like ESPN's overall bottom line the numbers will flatten or even decrease.

I'm sure they'll still generate plenty of money, but it won't just keep growing. It's a saturated market.

That said I'm fine if the ACC gets the guaranteed money with the addition they are still working on additional revenue streams.

The ACC just take the money and stop. That's what happened in around 2009-2010 when the ACC took the money rather than the risk of the network

(03-15-2016 09:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The real question Big Ten people need to ask themselves is how long before BTN revenues flatten out and even start to drop thanks to cord cutting (remember, that money is NOT guaranteed).

Don't worry about the ACC just yet. The extra $45 million IS guaranteed, so that's the floor. Be sure that ESPN is motivated to find a way to turn that $45 M from a pure expense into an investment...

The money gap will be managed and, eventually, shrink. Bookmark this if you wish - I'm confident.

Yes revenue for those networks will level off. That is the maturity stage. BTN isn't at that stage yet.

You keep growing the revenue by expanding. So there is room for more potential growth in the revenue, but eventually it will top out and mature.

(03-15-2016 11:00 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  If the Big 10 and SEC are truly headed towards that goal then we are on the way to 2 conferences of 28-32 teams.

Just keep grabbing teams from the Big 10, Pac 12, and ACC that you don't share a region with.

(03-15-2016 10:23 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:07 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  That's an important point. The Big 10 and SEC network aren't going to make 5 Million then 10 million then 20 Million in growth every few years.

Like ESPN's overall bottom line the numbers will flatten or even decrease.

I'm sure they'll still generate plenty of money, but it won't just keep growing. It's a saturated market.

That said I'm fine if the ACC gets the guaranteed money with the addition they are still working on additional revenue streams.

The ACC just take the money and stop. That's what happened in around 2009-2010 when the ACC took the money rather than the risk of the network

(03-15-2016 09:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The real question Big Ten people need to ask themselves is how long before BTN revenues flatten out and even start to drop thanks to cord cutting (remember, that money is NOT guaranteed).

Don't worry about the ACC just yet. The extra $45 million IS guaranteed, so that's the floor. Be sure that ESPN is motivated to find a way to turn that $45 M from a pure expense into an investment...

The money gap will be managed and, eventually, shrink. Bookmark this if you wish - I'm confident.

Yes revenue for those networks will level off. That is the maturity stage. BTN isn't at that stage yet.

You keep growing the revenue by expanding. So there is room for more potential growth in the revenue, but eventually it will top out and mature.

Affiliate membership allows for a lot of expansion....LaCrosse and Hockey are two examples.

To assume BTN and SECN revenue will continue to grow ignores the probability that millions of current subscribers will likely cancel their subscriptions in the next few years.

But if this article is accurate and cord cutting is going to kill the conference networks due to a dramatic shift in cultural attitudes towards cable sports programming, doesn't that make the Big Ten's additions of Maryland and Rutgers egregious - as they were done specifically for that reason?

Or are we operating under the assumption that these cultural trends won't apply to the B1G and SEC because they already have their networks? That seems naive to me but what do I know?

Cable bills will be paid. No more networks though.

it seems people missed the relevant part of the article

“ESPN has a clause in their contract that if they do not offer a network by July 1 of 2016, they owe the ACC – reportedly I should say – a clause in the contract that requires ESPN to pay the ACC $45 million a year to be divided among its schools,” Durham told Louisville Sports Live.

I try to follow these developments as closely as anyone in the media and I had not heard or read that anywhere previously.

Then I received this tweet from Tom Block of the Seminole IMG Sports Network:



so basically chad scott admits he follows these network developments closely, he clearly states he has never heard an amount of a deadline......but he gets a "tweet" from some nobody at FSU and suddenly we are all suppose to believe it is true

this is just more people "reporting" on tweets based on things that others have "reported" based on tweets

and as for dennis dodds and his comments even if the ACC got $3 million more a year per team they would still be just below the Big 12

the highest paid ACC teams last year received under $22 million while a 10 team AVERAGE for the Big 12 ignoring that TCU and WVU do not get full shares until this year was $25.6 million

and that was with the ACC having Orange Bowl and a team in the playoffs and the Big 12 not having Sugar Bowl money that year or a team in the playoffs that year

so the Big 12 will be looking at $46 million in additional income from bowls and playoffs this next payout while the ACC will be looking at a negative $27.5 in bowl revenue based on the Sugar and Orange Bowl rotations and of course the Big 12 having OU make the playoffs

so again it is clear that what dennis dodds is hearing is far from accurate or factually supported it is just more "sources" and tweets

sure the ACC might get more money, but this article is not validation of that it is validation of people wanting that to happen and believing it will based on not a lot of actual factual information

(03-15-2016 11:42 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Cable bills will be paid. No more networks though.

paid by whom? Former subscribers?

(03-15-2016 11:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:42 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Cable bills will be paid. No more networks though.

paid by whom? Former subscribers?

that or by people that are paying cable bills that no longer have ESPN or conference networks on their bill

But, take a look at the time table and the Big 12 expansion vote to take place? Could Big 12 be able to turn the Longhorns Network into a Big 12 Network? Expect Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Cincinnati, Memphis and Louisville shoot to the top of the expansion list to go to 16 teams. All 6 have very good football and basketball and could draw viewerships. That is 4 ACC schools that could vote to get rid of the GoRs. Look for the Big 10 to go after Virginia and North Carolina. That would be 6. SEC could go after Virginia Tech and NC State. That is 8 of the 14 full members Notre Dame is not a full member. Would that be enough to get rid of the GoRs? If not? Could Big 10 try and get Notre Dame and Duke as well? Boston College, Wake Forest, Miami, Syracuse and Pittsburgh left out in the cold. ACC could reload with Temple, UConn., Navy, UCF, USF, Old Dominion, Buffalo, Toledo and Georgia State.

When the $3M/school payment gets announced this summer, Todge Rodge is going to look like a fool.

(03-15-2016 12:29 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  When the $3M/school payment gets announced this summer, Todge Rodge is going to look like a fool.

and if it doesn't who cares either way

and the Big 12 will still be making more money per team than the ACC and UH will still be in the AAC

PS I was going to pull up my list of chip brown tweets about things that were sure to happen, but my PC crashed and said "error infinity not enough PC memory on earth to hold chip brown false tweets database"

I seriously doubt that ESPN and the ACC are going to formally announce that, in accordance with the contract signed in 2009, extended in 2012 (Pitt, Syracuse) and revised in 2013 (Notre Dame), the ACC is getting an extra $45M a year.

I personally suspect that this $45M is included in the previously released totals. But *IF* ESPN and the ACC formed a network, certain ACC-on-ESPN content would be moved to that network, and moved from the 2009/2012/2013 contract to a new ESPN/ACC contract, and the existing ESPN/ACC contract would be reduced by $45M per year. (The ACC and ESPN would be making more money off of the hypothetical network than they would off of the $45M worth of games that move from ESPN to ACCnet.)