(05-13-2016 09:42 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 07:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...53192.html

The News and Observer has much the same and along with the Greensboro N&R is the defacto paper of record for the league office.

Dave Teel would be the only media person that might have a greater depth of actual knowledge as he is sometimes used to dispense news. But it appears that something both lucrative and outside the box is in the works.

It's going to be a BS online "network".

Quote:More than once, though, he either spoke directly about or alluded to ESPN's ingenuity and creativeness. Swofford spoke about how negotiations these days are often less about traditional things – like rights fees – and more about “developing businesses together that are a partnership.”

Again, who knows what that means, exactly. From the sound of it, though, the conversations between the ACC and ESPN go much deeper than, “So, how about that network? Yay or nay?” And a network, in the traditional sense of the word, might be only a piece of what they're discussing at all.

Swofford made a point on Thursday to praise the ACC as a visionary in college sports. As proof, he pointed to league's early expansion from nine to 12 teams as evidence that the ACC knew where college sports would be headed, eventually.

You get the sense now that Swofford is attempting to build on the ACC's visionary status through whatever the next step is with TV – whether it's a dedicated channel or something else that takes advantage of emerging technology. What that next step looks like, though, is unclear.

The prospect of an ACC channel seems less likely now than it did three years ago, when it became a substantive topic after the league reached its grant of rights agreement. That doesn't mean that a channel won't come to be, or that something else won't take its place.

If we vote to extend the GOR for a BS ACC version of WatchESPN I'm dumping my IPTAY contributions next year and I'm not alone. No need to support an athletic program that signs a death pact with a bunch of schools with stage four lung cancer.

My 43 year old nephew Gary just died last week of Stage 4 lung cancer.

This situation with a bunch of college athletic departments fighting over TV money is not like that at all.

Sorry to hear about your nephew Terry. He was really too young. Cancer is the scourge of our society.

Thanks. I know that he meant no harm by his quote but it is still a little too raw to see it trivialized like that.

The way he mentions technology, flexibility, and willingness to adapt makes me feel like we're headed towards an online network.

I'm not saying that will necessarily be bad, but I wouldn't expect anything like the B1G/SEC network. It might be more along the lines of ESPN3.

(05-13-2016 12:21 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  The way he mentions technology, flexibility, and willingness to adapt makes me feel like we're headed towards an online network.

I'm not saying that will necessarily be bad, but I wouldn't expect anything like the B1G/SEC network. It might be more along the lines of ESPN3.

SECN is cable only. ESPN3 is internet only. I don't want either, tbh. What I'm hoping for is something new (for ESPN) - a network which is available via cable but also via the internet (presumably at a much higher price). Something like HBO Now ($15/mo).

Here's how much cable companies pay for each channel (and, let's face it, the reason a lot of people get cable is to watch ESPN):



By comparison, the SECN charges cable companies $1.40/mo in-footprint. Perhaps the ACCN could enjoy the best of both worlds: $1+/mo. for cable subscribers, or $10+/mo. for ala carte subscribers.

(05-13-2016 01:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 12:21 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  The way he mentions technology, flexibility, and willingness to adapt makes me feel like we're headed towards an online network.

I'm not saying that will necessarily be bad, but I wouldn't expect anything like the B1G/SEC network. It might be more along the lines of ESPN3.

SECN is cable only. ESPN3 is internet only. I don't want either, tbh. What I'm hoping for is something new (for ESPN) - a network which is available via cable but also via the internet (presumably at a much higher price). Something like HBO Now ($15/mo).

Here's how much cable companies pay for each channel (and, let's face it, the reason a lot of people get cable is to watch ESPN):



By comparison, the SECN charges cable companies $1.40/mo in-footprint. Perhaps the ACCN could enjoy the best of both worlds: $1+/mo. for cable subscribers, or $10+/mo. for ala carte subscribers.

This isn't as simple as it sounds. There are times when a bundle + a la carte model makes financial sense and there are times when it doesn't.*

On a high level, you don't want people jumping to the cheaper option. That would cannibalize your profits. Instead, you want to bring in new customers would would otherwise not purchase your product. I can't say for sure which would happen with the ACCN.

*I don't have HBO, but I assume you want something that you can either access via cable (bundle) or buy standalone and live stream (a la carte), which would be a bundle + a la carte model.

If we do have a network, it would be great to have a conventional network, it would also be great to have an accompanying web site that also streamed old games (a la Netflix). I don't think that they would compete with each other because one would serve fans' desire to stay current/see unpredictable content unfold, whereas the other would serve fans' desires to relive the glory days of their program. However, I do think that both options could be bundled together nicely.

It's not clear to me why that doesn't exist. The games have already been filmed and produced. The only cost is uploading them to a website and maintaining the website. I'm not sure who owns the content - ESPN, conference, or otherwise, but I think that they're just sitting on a goldmine for no reason.

(05-13-2016 05:23 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  No way will an Online network like ESPN 3 ever workout. Have You ever gone to watch a big game or even 1 that isn't at a sports bar or out somewhere ? The Online games shown will require a computer hooked up to a TV and the Images suck as well as images freezing up and streaming losses. Sound also is behind or ahead of what You see. Restaurants and bars will lose millions of dollars with that crap. A Traditional ACC Network like the SEC & B1G are the Only way to go.

Not true with my roku or Amazon fire tv. Mine works just like the tv and I watch on my tv. Who goes to the bar to watch louisville vs Samford any way? ?

(05-13-2016 11:21 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 09:42 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 07:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...53192.html

The News and Observer has much the same and along with the Greensboro N&R is the defacto paper of record for the league office.

Dave Teel would be the only media person that might have a greater depth of actual knowledge as he is sometimes used to dispense news. But it appears that something both lucrative and outside the box is in the works.

It's going to be a BS online "network".

Quote:More than once, though, he either spoke directly about or alluded to ESPN's ingenuity and creativeness. Swofford spoke about how negotiations these days are often less about traditional things – like rights fees – and more about “developing businesses together that are a partnership.”

Again, who knows what that means, exactly. From the sound of it, though, the conversations between the ACC and ESPN go much deeper than, “So, how about that network? Yay or nay?” And a network, in the traditional sense of the word, might be only a piece of what they're discussing at all.

Swofford made a point on Thursday to praise the ACC as a visionary in college sports. As proof, he pointed to league's early expansion from nine to 12 teams as evidence that the ACC knew where college sports would be headed, eventually.

You get the sense now that Swofford is attempting to build on the ACC's visionary status through whatever the next step is with TV – whether it's a dedicated channel or something else that takes advantage of emerging technology. What that next step looks like, though, is unclear.

The prospect of an ACC channel seems less likely now than it did three years ago, when it became a substantive topic after the league reached its grant of rights agreement. That doesn't mean that a channel won't come to be, or that something else won't take its place.

If we vote to extend the GOR for a BS ACC version of WatchESPN I'm dumping my IPTAY contributions next year and I'm not alone. No need to support an athletic program that signs a death pact with a bunch of schools with stage four lung cancer.

My 43 year old nephew Gary just died last week of Stage 4 lung cancer.

This situation with a bunch of college athletic departments fighting over TV money is not like that at all.

Sorry to hear about your nephew Terry. He was really too young. Cancer is the scourge of our society.

Thanks. I know that he meant no harm by his quote but it is still a little too raw to see it trivialized like that.

43 is too young. I am sorry to hear about your nephew. From someone who saw his oldest brother fight & beat cancer into remission only to see his wife die of breast cancer, and then lose a cousin to brain cancer; I share your feelings...

(05-13-2016 04:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  If we do have a network, it would be great to have a conventional network, it would also be great to have an accompanying web site that also streamed old games (a la Netflix). I don't think that they would compete with each other because one would serve fans' desire to stay current/see unpredictable content unfold, whereas the other would serve fans' desires to relive the glory days of their program. However, I do think that both options could be bundled together nicely.

It's not clear to me why that doesn't exist. The games have already been filmed and produced. The only cost is uploading them to a website and maintaining the website. I'm not sure who owns the content - ESPN, conference, or otherwise, but I think that they're just sitting on a goldmine for no reason.

I think this is the route we will see.

I think we might not get a 24/7 ACC network, but instead see something like ESPNEWS become the ACC network on Saturdays, in addition to other selective ACC programing throughout the week. Along with that we would also have a digital subscriber option like you mention above.

(05-13-2016 04:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...There are times when a bundle + a la carte model makes financial sense and there are times when it doesn't.*

On a high level, you don't want people jumping to the cheaper option. That would cannibalize your profits. Instead, you want to bring in new customers would would otherwise not purchase your product. I can't say for sure which would happen with the ACCN.

*I don't have HBO, but I assume you want something that you can either access via cable (bundle) or buy standalone and live stream (a la carte), which would be a bundle + a la carte model.

So if I go to McDonald's can I buy my sandwich, fries and drink ala carte, or must I buy a meal/combo? The meal is cheaper than the sum of the ala carte items, but I can do it either way. Why? Because ultimately they want to remove all artificial barriers to my purchase decision.

I think TV could and should be the sold the same way: so much for each channel, or a discounted price if you buy a predetermined bundle. You could make it even simpler and more customer-friendly by simply giving 20% off purchases of $100 or more.

I'll admit I don't know all of the economic theory behind it, but I do know this: a customer who feels in charge of the purchase is more likely to come back than one who doesn't. I learned that one while working for commission...

(05-13-2016 09:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 04:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...There are times when a bundle + a la carte model makes financial sense and there are times when it doesn't.*

On a high level, you don't want people jumping to the cheaper option. That would cannibalize your profits. Instead, you want to bring in new customers would would otherwise not purchase your product. I can't say for sure which would happen with the ACCN.

*I don't have HBO, but I assume you want something that you can either access via cable (bundle) or buy standalone and live stream (a la carte), which would be a bundle + a la carte model.

So if I go to McDonald's can I buy my sandwich, fries and drink ala carte, or must I buy a meal/combo? The meal is cheaper than the sum of the ala carte items, but I can do it either way. Why? Because ultimately they want to remove all artificial barriers to my purchase decision.

I think TV could and should be the sold the same way: so much for each channel, or a discounted price if you buy a predetermined bundle. You could make it even simpler and more customer-friendly by simply giving 20% off purchases of $100 or more.

I'll admit I don't know all of the economic theory behind it, but I do know this: a customer who feels in charge of the purchase is more likely to come back than one who doesn't. I learned that one while working for commission...

There is no solution that is right 100% of the time. It makes sense to bundle some of the time, and it doesn't the rest of the time.

Going back to your commission days, if the customer were indecisive between two options, did you push the cheaper one or the more expensive one?

(05-13-2016 10:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 09:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 04:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...There are times when a bundle + a la carte model makes financial sense and there are times when it doesn't.*

On a high level, you don't want people jumping to the cheaper option. That would cannibalize your profits. Instead, you want to bring in new customers would would otherwise not purchase your product. I can't say for sure which would happen with the ACCN.

*I don't have HBO, but I assume you want something that you can either access via cable (bundle) or buy standalone and live stream (a la carte), which would be a bundle + a la carte model.

So if I go to McDonald's can I buy my sandwich, fries and drink ala carte, or must I buy a meal/combo? The meal is cheaper than the sum of the ala carte items, but I can do it either way. Why? Because ultimately they want to remove all artificial barriers to my purchase decision.

I think TV could and should be the sold the same way: so much for each channel, or a discounted price if you buy a predetermined bundle. You could make it even simpler and more customer-friendly by simply giving 20% off purchases of $100 or more.

I'll admit I don't know all of the economic theory behind it, but I do know this: a customer who feels in charge of the purchase is more likely to come back than one who doesn't. I learned that one while working for commission...

There is no solution that is right 100% of the time. It makes sense to bundle some of the time, and it doesn't the rest of the time.

Going back to your commission days, if the customer were indecisive between two options, did you push the cheaper one or the more expensive one?

Duh! The thing is, I wanted ALL of the customers to buy from me, not just the big ticket guys. To be sure, I didn't want to miss out on the big spenders, but there just weren't enough of them - so to make my commission, I needed a steady stream of small tickets with as many big tickets as possible mixed in. That's what the ACCN should do, IMHO.

(05-13-2016 10:12 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Duh! The thing is, I wanted ALL of the customers to buy from me, not just the big ticket guys. To be sure, I didn't want to miss out on the big spenders, but there just weren't enough of them - so to make my commission, I needed a steady stream of small tickets with as many big tickets as possible mixed in. That's what the ACCN should do, IMHO.

Can we agree that there's some point where the added sales actually hurt if they take away from the big ticket sales?

(05-13-2016 10:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Can we agree that there's some point where the added sales actually hurt if they take away from the big ticket sales?

Sure. As long as you don't have too short a view. The customer you fleece today is someone else's tomorrow.

(05-14-2016 06:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Can we agree that there's some point where the added sales actually hurt if they take away from the big ticket sales?

Sure. As long as you don't have too short a view. The customer you fleece today is someone else's tomorrow.

OK, let's talk about the long term view for a second. In other words, would you say that there is a point where a win today is worth more than the future wins that you're passing up?

(05-14-2016 08:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 06:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Can we agree that there's some point where the added sales actually hurt if they take away from the big ticket sales?

Sure. As long as you don't have too short a view. The customer you fleece today is someone else's tomorrow.

OK, let's talk about the long term view for a second. In other words, would you say that there is a point where a win today is worth more than the future wins that you're passing up?

Sure. Call it the present worth value of wins. Not as predictable as interest though.

(05-14-2016 08:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Sure. Call it the present worth value of wins. Not as predictable as interest though.

I don't disagree. My only remaining questions is this:

If we can both agree that there is at least one condition in which a bundle model is more profitable than a bundle + model, how do you know this isn't it?

And to clarify, my argument isn't that I think that a bundle model, an a la carte model, or a bundle + model is better. My argument is that I don't think anyone on this board knows for sure. I know that "I know that I don't know." If you know what I mean

(05-13-2016 10:15 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I don't see any universe in which this is remotely true, that the ACC will be able to cut loose over ESPN's decision making. No way. We already know ESPN has an alternative compensation in place for not having a network, there's no way that there's any clause which will cut the ACC out of their contract altogether.

If ESPN fails to develop the ACCN or compensate appropriately (Look in periods), then the breach has occurred. The ACC would only need to prove a competitor could take the same property and substantially increase the deal to the ACC. Essentially, the ESPN deal would be a bad faith deal as applied to their efforts, ESPN must put forth honest effort to develop the network. On the flip side, if the ACC cannot prove they would be better off with a competitor, they have zero argument.

A second option would be an efficient breach. The contract is divisible and if both parties are strongly entrenched, an efficient breach may be the result. ESPN is not foolish and they will not let a property go if they believe they can make a profit. Letting the B1G go indicates that the viewing for the few elite games was not sufficient to cover the sever over-pricing of the mid-tier and lesser games; a.k.a. not as profitable as other options.*

The set payment of $45MM appears to be a cushion for ESPN to actually get a network in place (buys time to complete the work) while the 5-year look-ins are to ensure the ACC is competitively priced (NOTE: This protects ESPN and the ACC, if the ACC does not perform in football and hoops, the value is not increased significantly).

Regardless, once a network is in place, ESPN will likely demand a longer term agreement to ensure payback. Even more so if the ACC has an ownership stake in the deal. Add to that a financial agreement between the ACC schools similar to the BTN buy-in and exit arrangements.

*Has anyone heard of the Fox-BTN deal being finalized yet? I don't recall it being settled and it has been a month. I did a quick search and did not see anything pro or con.

(05-16-2016 05:48 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  *Has anyone heard of the Fox-BTN deal being finalized yet? I don't recall it being settled and it has been a month. I did a quick search and did not see anything pro or con.

BIG @FOXSports college football news to come! Massive transaction IMO.
-- Rob Stone ‏@RobStoneONFOX 5:12 PM - 12 May 2016

team FOX v. team ESPN ...
take sides ...

BEFORE YOU KNOW IT

(05-16-2016 12:21 PM)green Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:48 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  *Has anyone heard of the Fox-BTN deal being finalized yet? I don't recall it being settled and it has been a month. I did a quick search and did not see anything pro or con.

BIG @FOXSports college football news to come! Massive transaction IMO.
-- Rob Stone ‏@RobStoneONFOX 5:12 PM - 12 May 2016

team FOX v. team ESPN ...
take sides ...

BEFORE YOU KNOW IT

ESPN in 2017: Coming up next after our 20 secs of NHL Hockey Coverage...B1G Football

(05-16-2016 05:48 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  *Has anyone heard of the Fox-BTN deal being finalized yet? I don't recall it being settled and it has been a month. I did a quick search and did not see anything pro or con.

Abundantly clear that ABC/ESPN might not be part of next B1G media rights package
-- Teddy Greenstein @TeddyGreenstein 8:19 AM - 18 May 2016

HIT THE ROAD JACK