http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unbundling-.../15837851/

Notes ESPN's purchase Of 33% stake of MLB's Advanced Media.
ESPN's interest into direct-to-consumer live programming.

Hinting at potential problems for ACC associated with traditional conference sports network.

Instead, maybe web-based stand alone

*sorry if already posted

They are also indicating that the ACC network would not have any football or basketball games at first - only lacrosse and other Olympic sports. FB and BB would have to be added later - I wonder if that is due to the high cost to buy back the Fox and Rayon rights?

Speculate all you want, Swofford can dance around an issue with the best of 'em, but when it's ready, it will be right.

(07-09-2016 06:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  They are also indicating that the ACC network would not have any football or basketball games at first - only lacrosse and other Olympic sports. FB and BB would have to be added later - I wonder if that is due to the high cost to buy back the Fox and Rayon rights?

If those are the conditions under which we get an ACC Netierk, virtually no revenue would be generated and the ACC should give absolutely no concessions for one. It would be better to weather the storm and take all rights to the open market at the conclusion of this contract.

(07-09-2016 06:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  They are also indicating that the ACC network would not have any football or basketball games at first - only lacrosse and other Olympic sports. FB and BB would have to be added later - I wonder if that is due to the high cost to buy back the Fox and Rayon rights?

Sounds like the "ACC Network" is getting pared down to the point that if it happens at all that it will be nearly meaningless, certainly nothing that will generate significant revenue.

(07-09-2016 10:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 06:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  They are also indicating that the ACC network would not have any football or basketball games at first - only lacrosse and other Olympic sports. FB and BB would have to be added later - I wonder if that is due to the high cost to buy back the Fox and Rayon rights?

Sounds like the "ACC Network" is getting pared down to the point that if it happens at all that it will be nearly meaningless, certainly nothing that will generate significant revenue.

Espn's way of getting out of paying the 3 million per team

(07-09-2016 08:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  Speculate all you want, Swofford can dance around an issue with the best of 'em, but when it's ready, it will be right.

Other than Swofford being an alumnus from the school you root for, what has he really accomplished for the league that gives you such confidence in his ability? My problems with him stem from:

1. The lowest television deal, despite all of his connections.
2. Agreeing to the original deal without going to other companies to at least try and leverage a counter offer into a higher offer from ESPN.
3. Inclusion of Raycom in the deal (saved the company his son helps to run).
4. The increases in payout with the inclusion of new teams pales when you consider how the extensions to the deal and the back loaded nature help to dampen the increases.
5. Reneging on the stance of no partial memberships.
6. His unfair handling of state and team issues:

SC has Confederate flag issue, he leads the charge for removing baseball tournament from Greenville SC (which is fine). The tournament is moved to NC. However, NC has the transgender flareup in state laws being passed, and he says he will 'monitor the issue', but no changes in venue occurs. ACC football championship game struggles in Florida, it gets moved to Charlotte, NC. Basketball tournament is in Greensboro, NC. (Under his guidance, all of the big three championships end up in NC).

He cost the conference the Gator Bowl when he forced them to take another team when they wanted Clemson because of our travelling fans (passed the rule about not jumping other teams with at least a 2 game better record the very next year). The Gator Bowl broke with the ACC because it did not want to risk teams that do not travel being forced on them. He was caught unawares in regards to the Big 12 and SEC scheduling against each other for their 2nd place teams in a guaranteed bowl, leaving slim options for the ACC. The Orange Bowl deal is a real head scratcher in that we supposedly own the bowl, but the agreement ends up that the team the ACC plays in the bowl gets the same money as the team that owns the bowl (could have been a way to decrease the money disparity between ACC and others). With the loss of the Peach (Chic-filet), which was not his fault, the ACC lost its second and third best bowl. Our number 2 bowl (Champs) is what used to be the Cirus Bowl (held in low repute, leading to Spurrier once quippping about Tennessee- you cant spell Citrus withour UT).

I can go on. Several years ago, he was ready to sanction Clemson football because of photos that had players in shells supposedly before they were allowed to. They then receive photos of UNC football players in the same situation, and suddenly no action is to be taken against any team. Or not going to bat for GT when they were sanctioned, but goes to UNC's hearing with the NCAA infractions people. Or how, under his leadership, his former team ends up with all of its former rivals on the schedule yearly, with the shortest distance to travel, avoiding the poorer recruiting grounds that are located in the Atlantic.

TL; DR, I view Swofford as subpar and unfair in his job performance.

You forgot that under his watch he lost a founding member of the conference.

(07-09-2016 06:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  They are also indicating that the ACC network would not have any football or basketball games at first - only lacrosse and other Olympic sports. FB and BB would have to be added later - I wonder if that is due to the high cost to buy back the Fox and Rayon rights?

Thats not exactly what I gathered from the article. This is the blurb:

In order for a traditional cable channel to work, ESPN would have to risk putting high-value matchups, such as a Duke vs. North Carolina basketball game, as exclusives to drum up demand. That's a highly unlikely proposition for obvious reason

To me, the article is saying that its not likely that there will be any high value matchups on the channel at first, like UNC/Duke. But instead, maybe a UNC/FSU or Duke/Clemson. Likewise, its doubtful you will ever see a FSU/Clemson or Miami/FSU fb game on the channel, but maybe an FSU/Syracuse or Clemson/NC State fb game. Its likely those lower tier bb and fb games would be on the channel along with like baseball and lacrosse, etc.. Thats what I took from the article.

(07-09-2016 10:53 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 08:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  Speculate all you want, Swofford can dance around an issue with the best of 'em, but when it's ready, it will be right.

Other than Swofford being an alumnus from the school you root for, what has he really accomplished for the league that gives you such confidence in his ability? My problems with him stem from:

1. The lowest television deal, despite all of his connections.
2. Agreeing to the original deal without going to other companies to at least try and leverage a counter offer into a higher offer from ESPN.
3. Inclusion of Raycom in the deal (saved the company his son helps to run).
4. The increases in payout with the inclusion of new teams pales when you consider how the extensions to the deal and the back loaded nature help to dampen the increases.
5. Reneging on the stance of no partial memberships.
6. His unfair handling of state and team issues:

SC has Confederate flag issue, he leads the charge for removing baseball tournament from Greenville SC (which is fine). The tournament is moved to NC. However, NC has the transgender flareup in state laws being passed, and he says he will 'monitor the issue', but no changes in venue occurs. ACC football championship game struggles in Florida, it gets moved to Charlotte, NC. Basketball tournament is in Greensboro, NC. (Under his guidance, all of the big three championships end up in NC).

He cost the conference the Gator Bowl when he forced them to take another team when they wanted Clemson because of our travelling fans (passed the rule about not jumping other teams with at least a 2 game better record the very next year). The Gator Bowl broke with the ACC because it did not want to risk teams that do not travel being forced on them. He was caught unawares in regards to the Big 12 and SEC scheduling against each other for their 2nd place teams in a guaranteed bowl, leaving slim options for the ACC. The Orange Bowl deal is a real head scratcher in that we supposedly own the bowl, but the agreement ends up that the team the ACC plays in the bowl gets the same money as the team that owns the bowl (could have been a way to decrease the money disparity between ACC and others). With the loss of the Peach (Chic-filet), which was not his fault, the ACC lost its second and third best bowl. Our number 2 bowl (Champs) is what used to be the Cirus Bowl (held in low repute, leading to Spurrier once quippping about Tennessee- you cant spell Citrus withour UT).

I can go on. Several years ago, he was ready to sanction Clemson football because of photos that had players in shells supposedly before they were allowed to. They then receive photos of UNC football players in the same situation, and suddenly no action is to be taken against any team. Or not going to bat for GT when they were sanctioned, but goes to UNC's hearing with the NCAA infractions people. Or how, under his leadership, his former team ends up with all of its former rivals on the schedule yearly, with the shortest distance to travel, avoiding the poorer recruiting grounds that are located in the Atlantic.

TL; DR, I view Swofford as subpar and unfair in his job performance.

You are either young or really new to CR.
1&2)
First I would suggest that you PM OmniOrange and ask him for all of the links about the ACC contract. He was collecting information to write a book on CR and is a wealth of information. The Big East folks monitored the ACC situation with great interest back before the Big East collapsed.
ESPN did make an initial offer to the ACC which Swofford rejected. The ACC then flirted with FOX in a successful effort to get more money out of ESPN. When the deal was signed most of the folks on the Big East board where amazed at the amount the ACC was able to get. The contract was only great until the next deal was negotiated. The ACC was a victim of circumstance by going first ni contrac.t negotiations.
3) back in the old days the only exposure for the ACC came from the old CD Chesley/Jefferson-Pilot/Raycom networks. Their approach was unique in that the networks sold the games to individual stations in different ACC markets and the stations themselves sold local firms advertising that appeared only on those stations. Over a period of time these local companies along with the stations were able to create a local identity with the ACC. This was during a time when the "big boys" of the broadcast world paid very little attention to the ACC. The Raycom deal was a matter of loyalty and was facilitated by the University Presidents. They realized that local companies had allowed the ACC to take root and grow in a time that without the help of some creative marketing the ACC would not have become an established brand. But a sense of brotherhood is what has distinguished the ACC from other leagues from the start, and you don't leave behind the ones that helped you get where you are. LP4 would be a good source of information about the history of the ACC and the relationship of the conference with local broadcast partners.

If the ACC is truly your league, spend some time to learn instead of believing everything you read on the internet.

(07-09-2016 12:42 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 06:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  They are also indicating that the ACC network would not have any football or basketball games at first - only lacrosse and other Olympic sports. FB and BB would have to be added later - I wonder if that is due to the high cost to buy back the Fox and Rayon rights?

Thats not exactly what I gathered from the article. This is the blurb:

In order for a traditional cable channel to work, ESPN would have to risk putting high-value matchups, such as a Duke vs. North Carolina basketball game, as exclusives to drum up demand. That's a highly unlikely proposition for obvious reason

To me, the article is saying that its not likely that there will be any high value matchups on the channel at first, like UNC/Duke. But instead, maybe a UNC/FSU or Duke/Clemson. Likewise, its doubtful you will ever see a FSU/Clemson or Miami/FSU fb game on the channel, but maybe an FSU/Syracuse or Clemson/NC State fb game. Its likely those lower tier bb and fb games would be on the channel along with like baseball and lacrosse, etc.. Thats what I took from the article.

ESPN put Duke-UNC on ESPN2 in the first year or two that network was in existence in order to help kickstart it.

The first and foremost problem with the article is that is written by Joe Ovies, If Ovies told you **** stunk, you would need a second opinion. Real information would come from other sources.

(07-09-2016 12:59 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 12:42 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 06:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  They are also indicating that the ACC network would not have any football or basketball games at first - only lacrosse and other Olympic sports. FB and BB would have to be added later - I wonder if that is due to the high cost to buy back the Fox and Rayon rights?

Thats not exactly what I gathered from the article. This is the blurb:

In order for a traditional cable channel to work, ESPN would have to risk putting high-value matchups, such as a Duke vs. North Carolina basketball game, as exclusives to drum up demand. That's a highly unlikely proposition for obvious reason

To me, the article is saying that its not likely that there will be any high value matchups on the channel at first, like UNC/Duke. But instead, maybe a UNC/FSU or Duke/Clemson. Likewise, its doubtful you will ever see a FSU/Clemson or Miami/FSU fb game on the channel, but maybe an FSU/Syracuse or Clemson/NC State fb game. Its likely those lower tier bb and fb games would be on the channel along with like baseball and lacrosse, etc.. Thats what I took from the article.

ESPN put Duke-UNC on ESPN2 in the first year or two that network was in existence in order to help kickstart it.

Thats besides the point. I was making the point to Hokiemark that I interpret, that there would be basketball and fb right away, and not just olympic sports content. It doesnt really matter if there are high value games or lower value games. The point is that there WILL be basketball and fb games on the supposed network.

(07-09-2016 12:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 10:53 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 08:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  Speculate all you want, Swofford can dance around an issue with the best of 'em, but when it's ready, it will be right.

Other than Swofford being an alumnus from the school you root for, what has he really accomplished for the league that gives you such confidence in his ability? My problems with him stem from:

1. The lowest television deal, despite all of his connections.
2. Agreeing to the original deal without going to other companies to at least try and leverage a counter offer into a higher offer from ESPN.
3. Inclusion of Raycom in the deal (saved the company his son helps to run).
4. The increases in payout with the inclusion of new teams pales when you consider how the extensions to the deal and the back loaded nature help to dampen the increases.
5. Reneging on the stance of no partial memberships.
6. His unfair handling of state and team issues:

SC has Confederate flag issue, he leads the charge for removing baseball tournament from Greenville SC (which is fine). The tournament is moved to NC. However, NC has the transgender flareup in state laws being passed, and he says he will 'monitor the issue', but no changes in venue occurs. ACC football championship game struggles in Florida, it gets moved to Charlotte, NC. Basketball tournament is in Greensboro, NC. (Under his guidance, all of the big three championships end up in NC).

He cost the conference the Gator Bowl when he forced them to take another team when they wanted Clemson because of our travelling fans (passed the rule about not jumping other teams with at least a 2 game better record the very next year). The Gator Bowl broke with the ACC because it did not want to risk teams that do not travel being forced on them. He was caught unawares in regards to the Big 12 and SEC scheduling against each other for their 2nd place teams in a guaranteed bowl, leaving slim options for the ACC. The Orange Bowl deal is a real head scratcher in that we supposedly own the bowl, but the agreement ends up that the team the ACC plays in the bowl gets the same money as the team that owns the bowl (could have been a way to decrease the money disparity between ACC and others). With the loss of the Peach (Chic-filet), which was not his fault, the ACC lost its second and third best bowl. Our number 2 bowl (Champs) is what used to be the Cirus Bowl (held in low repute, leading to Spurrier once quippping about Tennessee- you cant spell Citrus withour UT).

I can go on. Several years ago, he was ready to sanction Clemson football because of photos that had players in shells supposedly before they were allowed to. They then receive photos of UNC football players in the same situation, and suddenly no action is to be taken against any team. Or not going to bat for GT when they were sanctioned, but goes to UNC's hearing with the NCAA infractions people. Or how, under his leadership, his former team ends up with all of its former rivals on the schedule yearly, with the shortest distance to travel, avoiding the poorer recruiting grounds that are located in the Atlantic.

TL; DR, I view Swofford as subpar and unfair in his job performance.

You are either young or really new to CR.
1&2)
First I would suggest that you PM OmniOrange and ask him for all of the links about the ACC contract. He was collecting information to write a book on CR and is a wealth of information. The Big East folks monitored the ACC situation with great interest back before the Big East collapsed.
ESPN did make an initial offer to the ACC which Swofford rejected. The ACC then flirted with FOX in a successful effort to get more money out of ESPN. When the deal was signed most of the folks on the Big East board where amazed at the amount the ACC was able to get. The contract was only great until the next deal was negotiated. The ACC was a victim of circumstance by going first ni contrac.t negotiations.
3) back in the old days the only exposure for the ACC came from the old CD Chesley/Jefferson-Pilot/Raycom networks. Their approach was unique in that the networks sold the games to individual stations in different ACC markets and the stations themselves sold local firms advertising that appeared only on those stations. Over a period of time these local companies along with the stations were able to create a local identity with the ACC. This was during a time when the "big boys" of the broadcast world paid very little attention to the ACC. The Raycom deal was a matter of loyalty and was facilitated by the University Presidents. They realized that local companies had allowed the ACC to take root and grow in a time that without the help of some creative marketing the ACC would not have become an established brand. But a sense of brotherhood is what has distinguished the ACC from other leagues from the start, and you don't leave behind the ones that helped you get where you are. LP4 would be a good source of information about the history of the ACC and the relationship of the conference with local broadcast partners.

If the ACC is truly your league, spend some time to learn instead of believing everything you read on the internet.

I know the history. As for the deal, Swofford took the first offer to get counteroffers, but the second offer from ESPN he accepted with the caveat to include Raycom in the subleasing of games. The second offer he did not take to other bidders, opting to close the deal with ESPN.

Just because Jefferson Pilot carried games decades ago is not a reason to basically subsidize them. Ever consider that is why all of the Tier 3 games are included in the contract? Also, their production quality stinks. What you are supporting is a good ole boys setup that is still a problem to this day.

Swofford has now been coy with the idea of a network for 5-6 years (?), and, if the blog referenced in this thread is true, we end up with a web-based platform, it to me means several things. 1) ESPN is still giving us the stepchild treatment, 2) Swofford's decision to roll all tier 3 content into the deal is going to haunt us, 3) The conference will be in major trouble toward the end of the current contract.

Louc C. recently has written about his fear of a watered-down channel with an accompanying lengthing of the contract of 10 years. That now could be a serious danger.

As for the landscape changing, so what? I do not think ESPN is worried about the SEC network being a dinosaur. It looks like we may be the guinea pig that ESPN chooses to endanger and the SEC Network will get the benefit of what they learn when/if they need to transition it over.

I do not think a web-based service will make enough money to be considered a success in the terms that the ACC needs it to. I, for example, love to follow Clemson sports; I will not pay for a streaming service to watch olympic sports. Consider that other dedicated channels have a football/basketball component to generate interest that then allows olympic sports a venue to be showcased. That will not happen successfully with a stand-alone streaming service.

Niche programming will attract niche markets. How small will the ACC niche market be?

If the window has truly closed on true OTA conference channels, then the ACC is in real trouble.

(07-09-2016 10:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 06:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  They are also indicating that the ACC network would not have any football or basketball games at first - only lacrosse and other Olympic sports. FB and BB would have to be added later - I wonder if that is due to the high cost to buy back the Fox and Rayon rights?

Sounds like the "ACC Network" is getting pared down to the point that if it happens at all that it will be nearly meaningless, certainly nothing that will generate significant revenue.

Things are looking bad when even the most neutral level headed posters like yourself are starting to worry. I really hope the ACC doesn't get screwed by its "leadership" again.

(07-09-2016 01:39 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 12:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 10:53 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 08:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  Speculate all you want, Swofford can dance around an issue with the best of 'em, but when it's ready, it will be right.

Other than Swofford being an alumnus from the school you root for, what has he really accomplished for the league that gives you such confidence in his ability? My problems with him stem from:

1. The lowest television deal, despite all of his connections.
2. Agreeing to the original deal without going to other companies to at least try and leverage a counter offer into a higher offer from ESPN.
3. Inclusion of Raycom in the deal (saved the company his son helps to run).
4. The increases in payout with the inclusion of new teams pales when you consider how the extensions to the deal and the back loaded nature help to dampen the increases.
5. Reneging on the stance of no partial memberships.
6. His unfair handling of state and team issues:

SC has Confederate flag issue, he leads the charge for removing baseball tournament from Greenville SC (which is fine). The tournament is moved to NC. However, NC has the transgender flareup in state laws being passed, and he says he will 'monitor the issue', but no changes in venue occurs. ACC football championship game struggles in Florida, it gets moved to Charlotte, NC. Basketball tournament is in Greensboro, NC. (Under his guidance, all of the big three championships end up in NC).

He cost the conference the Gator Bowl when he forced them to take another team when they wanted Clemson because of our travelling fans (passed the rule about not jumping other teams with at least a 2 game better record the very next year). The Gator Bowl broke with the ACC because it did not want to risk teams that do not travel being forced on them. He was caught unawares in regards to the Big 12 and SEC scheduling against each other for their 2nd place teams in a guaranteed bowl, leaving slim options for the ACC. The Orange Bowl deal is a real head scratcher in that we supposedly own the bowl, but the agreement ends up that the team the ACC plays in the bowl gets the same money as the team that owns the bowl (could have been a way to decrease the money disparity between ACC and others). With the loss of the Peach (Chic-filet), which was not his fault, the ACC lost its second and third best bowl. Our number 2 bowl (Champs) is what used to be the Cirus Bowl (held in low repute, leading to Spurrier once quippping about Tennessee- you cant spell Citrus withour UT).

I can go on. Several years ago, he was ready to sanction Clemson football because of photos that had players in shells supposedly before they were allowed to. They then receive photos of UNC football players in the same situation, and suddenly no action is to be taken against any team. Or not going to bat for GT when they were sanctioned, but goes to UNC's hearing with the NCAA infractions people. Or how, under his leadership, his former team ends up with all of its former rivals on the schedule yearly, with the shortest distance to travel, avoiding the poorer recruiting grounds that are located in the Atlantic.

TL; DR, I view Swofford as subpar and unfair in his job performance.

You are either young or really new to CR.
1&2)
First I would suggest that you PM OmniOrange and ask him for all of the links about the ACC contract. He was collecting information to write a book on CR and is a wealth of information. The Big East folks monitored the ACC situation with great interest back before the Big East collapsed.
ESPN did make an initial offer to the ACC which Swofford rejected. The ACC then flirted with FOX in a successful effort to get more money out of ESPN. When the deal was signed most of the folks on the Big East board where amazed at the amount the ACC was able to get. The contract was only great until the next deal was negotiated. The ACC was a victim of circumstance by going first ni contrac.t negotiations.
3) back in the old days the only exposure for the ACC came from the old CD Chesley/Jefferson-Pilot/Raycom networks. Their approach was unique in that the networks sold the games to individual stations in different ACC markets and the stations themselves sold local firms advertising that appeared only on those stations. Over a period of time these local companies along with the stations were able to create a local identity with the ACC. This was during a time when the "big boys" of the broadcast world paid very little attention to the ACC. The Raycom deal was a matter of loyalty and was facilitated by the University Presidents. They realized that local companies had allowed the ACC to take root and grow in a time that without the help of some creative marketing the ACC would not have become an established brand. But a sense of brotherhood is what has distinguished the ACC from other leagues from the start, and you don't leave behind the ones that helped you get where you are. LP4 would be a good source of information about the history of the ACC and the relationship of the conference with local broadcast partners.

If the ACC is truly your league, spend some time to learn instead of believing everything you read on the internet.

I know the history. As for the deal, Swofford took the first offer to get counteroffers, but the second offer from ESPN he accepted with the caveat to include Raycom in the subleasing of games. The second offer he did not take to other bidders, opting to close the deal with ESPN.

Just because Jefferson Pilot carried games decades ago is not a reason to basically subsidize them. Ever consider that is why all of the Tier 3 games are included in the contract? Also, their production quality stinks. What you are supporting is a good ole boys setup that is still a problem to this day.

Swofford has now been coy with the idea of a network for 5-6 years (?), and, if the blog referenced in this thread is true, we end up with a web-based platform, it to me means several things. 1) ESPN is still giving us the stepchild treatment, 2) Swofford's decision to roll all tier 3 content into the deal is going to haunt us, 3) The conference will be in major trouble toward the end of the current contract.

Louc C. recently has written about his fear of a watered-down channel with an accompanying lengthing of the contract of 10 years. That now could be a serious danger.

As for the landscape changing, so what? I do not think ESPN is worried about the SEC network being a dinosaur. It looks like we may be the guinea pig that ESPN chooses to endanger and the SEC Network will get the benefit of what they learn when/if they need to transition it over.

I do not think a web-based service will make enough money to be considered a success in the terms that the ACC needs it to. I, for example, love to follow Clemson sports; I will not pay for a streaming service to watch olympic sports. Consider that other dedicated channels have a football/basketball component to generate interest that then allows olympic sports a venue to be showcased. That will not happen successfully with a stand-alone streaming service.

Niche programming will attract niche markets. How small will the ACC niche market be?

If the window has truly closed on true OTA conference channels, then the ACC is in real trouble.

I understand that some fans could care less about certain sports and are passionate about others. I guess my question for you irh is this, how many away Clemson football games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson men's basketball basketball games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson women's basketball games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson baseball games would you $10 to see on a streaming service? How many men's and women's soccer games? How many men's and women's lacrosse?

What if you could watch 5 various Clemson games in a month you either can't get to when they are played at home or are on the road? Would that be worth $10 to an ACC streaming service?

(07-09-2016 01:39 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 12:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 10:53 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 08:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  Speculate all you want, Swofford can dance around an issue with the best of 'em, but when it's ready, it will be right.

Other than Swofford being an alumnus from the school you root for, what has he really accomplished for the league that gives you such confidence in his ability? My problems with him stem from:

1. The lowest television deal, despite all of his connections.
2. Agreeing to the original deal without going to other companies to at least try and leverage a counter offer into a higher offer from ESPN.
3. Inclusion of Raycom in the deal (saved the company his son helps to run).
4. The increases in payout with the inclusion of new teams pales when you consider how the extensions to the deal and the back loaded nature help to dampen the increases.
5. Reneging on the stance of no partial memberships.
6. His unfair handling of state and team issues:

SC has Confederate flag issue, he leads the charge for removing baseball tournament from Greenville SC (which is fine). The tournament is moved to NC. However, NC has the transgender flareup in state laws being passed, and he says he will 'monitor the issue', but no changes in venue occurs. ACC football championship game struggles in Florida, it gets moved to Charlotte, NC. Basketball tournament is in Greensboro, NC. (Under his guidance, all of the big three championships end up in NC).

He cost the conference the Gator Bowl when he forced them to take another team when they wanted Clemson because of our travelling fans (passed the rule about not jumping other teams with at least a 2 game better record the very next year). The Gator Bowl broke with the ACC because it did not want to risk teams that do not travel being forced on them. He was caught unawares in regards to the Big 12 and SEC scheduling against each other for their 2nd place teams in a guaranteed bowl, leaving slim options for the ACC. The Orange Bowl deal is a real head scratcher in that we supposedly own the bowl, but the agreement ends up that the team the ACC plays in the bowl gets the same money as the team that owns the bowl (could have been a way to decrease the money disparity between ACC and others). With the loss of the Peach (Chic-filet), which was not his fault, the ACC lost its second and third best bowl. Our number 2 bowl (Champs) is what used to be the Cirus Bowl (held in low repute, leading to Spurrier once quippping about Tennessee- you cant spell Citrus withour UT).

I can go on. Several years ago, he was ready to sanction Clemson football because of photos that had players in shells supposedly before they were allowed to. They then receive photos of UNC football players in the same situation, and suddenly no action is to be taken against any team. Or not going to bat for GT when they were sanctioned, but goes to UNC's hearing with the NCAA infractions people. Or how, under his leadership, his former team ends up with all of its former rivals on the schedule yearly, with the shortest distance to travel, avoiding the poorer recruiting grounds that are located in the Atlantic.

TL; DR, I view Swofford as subpar and unfair in his job performance.

You are either young or really new to CR.
1&2)
First I would suggest that you PM OmniOrange and ask him for all of the links about the ACC contract. He was collecting information to write a book on CR and is a wealth of information. The Big East folks monitored the ACC situation with great interest back before the Big East collapsed.
ESPN did make an initial offer to the ACC which Swofford rejected. The ACC then flirted with FOX in a successful effort to get more money out of ESPN. When the deal was signed most of the folks on the Big East board where amazed at the amount the ACC was able to get. The contract was only great until the next deal was negotiated. The ACC was a victim of circumstance by going first ni contrac.t negotiations.
3) back in the old days the only exposure for the ACC came from the old CD Chesley/Jefferson-Pilot/Raycom networks. Their approach was unique in that the networks sold the games to individual stations in different ACC markets and the stations themselves sold local firms advertising that appeared only on those stations. Over a period of time these local companies along with the stations were able to create a local identity with the ACC. This was during a time when the "big boys" of the broadcast world paid very little attention to the ACC. The Raycom deal was a matter of loyalty and was facilitated by the University Presidents. They realized that local companies had allowed the ACC to take root and grow in a time that without the help of some creative marketing the ACC would not have become an established brand. But a sense of brotherhood is what has distinguished the ACC from other leagues from the start, and you don't leave behind the ones that helped you get where you are. LP4 would be a good source of information about the history of the ACC and the relationship of the conference with local broadcast partners.

If the ACC is truly your league, spend some time to learn instead of believing everything you read on the internet.

I know the history. As for the deal, Swofford took the first offer to get counteroffers, but the second offer from ESPN he accepted with the caveat to include Raycom in the subleasing of games. The second offer he did not take to other bidders, opting to close the deal with ESPN.

Just because Jefferson Pilot carried games decades ago is not a reason to basically subsidize them. Ever consider that is why all of the Tier 3 games are included in the contract? Also, their production quality stinks. What you are supporting is a good ole boys setup that is still a problem to this day.

Swofford has now been coy with the idea of a network for 5-6 years (?), and, if the blog referenced in this thread is true, we end up with a web-based platform, it to me means several things. 1) ESPN is still giving us the stepchild treatment, 2) Swofford's decision to roll all tier 3 content into the deal is going to haunt us, 3) The conference will be in major trouble toward the end of the current contract.

Louc C. recently has written about his fear of a watered-down channel with an accompanying lengthing of the contract of 10 years. That now could be a serious danger.

As for the landscape changing, so what? I do not think ESPN is worried about the SEC network being a dinosaur. It looks like we may be the guinea pig that ESPN chooses to endanger and the SEC Network will get the benefit of what they learn when/if they need to transition it over.

I do not think a web-based service will make enough money to be considered a success in the terms that the ACC needs it to. I, for example, love to follow Clemson sports; I will not pay for a streaming service to watch olympic sports. Consider that other dedicated channels have a football/basketball component to generate interest that then allows olympic sports a venue to be showcased. That will not happen successfully with a stand-alone streaming service.

Niche programming will attract niche markets. How small will the ACC niche market be?

If the window has truly closed on true OTA conference channels, then the ACC is in real trouble.

I believe that the window on true OTA conference networks is indeed closed.

(07-09-2016 02:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 01:39 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 12:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 10:53 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 08:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  Speculate all you want, Swofford can dance around an issue with the best of 'em, but when it's ready, it will be right.

Other than Swofford being an alumnus from the school you root for, what has he really accomplished for the league that gives you such confidence in his ability? My problems with him stem from:

1. The lowest television deal, despite all of his connections.
2. Agreeing to the original deal without going to other companies to at least try and leverage a counter offer into a higher offer from ESPN.
3. Inclusion of Raycom in the deal (saved the company his son helps to run).
4. The increases in payout with the inclusion of new teams pales when you consider how the extensions to the deal and the back loaded nature help to dampen the increases.
5. Reneging on the stance of no partial memberships.
6. His unfair handling of state and team issues:

SC has Confederate flag issue, he leads the charge for removing baseball tournament from Greenville SC (which is fine). The tournament is moved to NC. However, NC has the transgender flareup in state laws being passed, and he says he will 'monitor the issue', but no changes in venue occurs. ACC football championship game struggles in Florida, it gets moved to Charlotte, NC. Basketball tournament is in Greensboro, NC. (Under his guidance, all of the big three championships end up in NC).

He cost the conference the Gator Bowl when he forced them to take another team when they wanted Clemson because of our travelling fans (passed the rule about not jumping other teams with at least a 2 game better record the very next year). The Gator Bowl broke with the ACC because it did not want to risk teams that do not travel being forced on them. He was caught unawares in regards to the Big 12 and SEC scheduling against each other for their 2nd place teams in a guaranteed bowl, leaving slim options for the ACC. The Orange Bowl deal is a real head scratcher in that we supposedly own the bowl, but the agreement ends up that the team the ACC plays in the bowl gets the same money as the team that owns the bowl (could have been a way to decrease the money disparity between ACC and others). With the loss of the Peach (Chic-filet), which was not his fault, the ACC lost its second and third best bowl. Our number 2 bowl (Champs) is what used to be the Cirus Bowl (held in low repute, leading to Spurrier once quippping about Tennessee- you cant spell Citrus withour UT).

I can go on. Several years ago, he was ready to sanction Clemson football because of photos that had players in shells supposedly before they were allowed to. They then receive photos of UNC football players in the same situation, and suddenly no action is to be taken against any team. Or not going to bat for GT when they were sanctioned, but goes to UNC's hearing with the NCAA infractions people. Or how, under his leadership, his former team ends up with all of its former rivals on the schedule yearly, with the shortest distance to travel, avoiding the poorer recruiting grounds that are located in the Atlantic.

TL; DR, I view Swofford as subpar and unfair in his job performance.

You are either young or really new to CR.
1&2)
First I would suggest that you PM OmniOrange and ask him for all of the links about the ACC contract. He was collecting information to write a book on CR and is a wealth of information. The Big East folks monitored the ACC situation with great interest back before the Big East collapsed.
ESPN did make an initial offer to the ACC which Swofford rejected. The ACC then flirted with FOX in a successful effort to get more money out of ESPN. When the deal was signed most of the folks on the Big East board where amazed at the amount the ACC was able to get. The contract was only great until the next deal was negotiated. The ACC was a victim of circumstance by going first ni contrac.t negotiations.
3) back in the old days the only exposure for the ACC came from the old CD Chesley/Jefferson-Pilot/Raycom networks. Their approach was unique in that the networks sold the games to individual stations in different ACC markets and the stations themselves sold local firms advertising that appeared only on those stations. Over a period of time these local companies along with the stations were able to create a local identity with the ACC. This was during a time when the "big boys" of the broadcast world paid very little attention to the ACC. The Raycom deal was a matter of loyalty and was facilitated by the University Presidents. They realized that local companies had allowed the ACC to take root and grow in a time that without the help of some creative marketing the ACC would not have become an established brand. But a sense of brotherhood is what has distinguished the ACC from other leagues from the start, and you don't leave behind the ones that helped you get where you are. LP4 would be a good source of information about the history of the ACC and the relationship of the conference with local broadcast partners.

If the ACC is truly your league, spend some time to learn instead of believing everything you read on the internet.

I know the history. As for the deal, Swofford took the first offer to get counteroffers, but the second offer from ESPN he accepted with the caveat to include Raycom in the subleasing of games. The second offer he did not take to other bidders, opting to close the deal with ESPN.

Just because Jefferson Pilot carried games decades ago is not a reason to basically subsidize them. Ever consider that is why all of the Tier 3 games are included in the contract? Also, their production quality stinks. What you are supporting is a good ole boys setup that is still a problem to this day.

Swofford has now been coy with the idea of a network for 5-6 years (?), and, if the blog referenced in this thread is true, we end up with a web-based platform, it to me means several things. 1) ESPN is still giving us the stepchild treatment, 2) Swofford's decision to roll all tier 3 content into the deal is going to haunt us, 3) The conference will be in major trouble toward the end of the current contract.

Louc C. recently has written about his fear of a watered-down channel with an accompanying lengthing of the contract of 10 years. That now could be a serious danger.

As for the landscape changing, so what? I do not think ESPN is worried about the SEC network being a dinosaur. It looks like we may be the guinea pig that ESPN chooses to endanger and the SEC Network will get the benefit of what they learn when/if they need to transition it over.

I do not think a web-based service will make enough money to be considered a success in the terms that the ACC needs it to. I, for example, love to follow Clemson sports; I will not pay for a streaming service to watch olympic sports. Consider that other dedicated channels have a football/basketball component to generate interest that then allows olympic sports a venue to be showcased. That will not happen successfully with a stand-alone streaming service.

Niche programming will attract niche markets. How small will the ACC niche market be?

If the window has truly closed on true OTA conference channels, then the ACC is in real trouble.

I understand that some fans could care less about certain sports and are passionate about others. I guess my question for you irh is this, how many away Clemson football games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson men's basketball basketball games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson women's basketball games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson baseball games would you $10 to see on a streaming service? How many men's and women's soccer games? How many men's and women's lacrosse?

What if you could watch 5 various Clemson games in a month you either can't get to when they are played at home or are on the road? Would that be worth $10 to an ACC streaming service?

I would pay a lot for an ND streaming channel that just showed ND content.

I would dislike paying for an all-ACC channel (or any other conference channel) because I dislike having to pay for content that I don't watch or even want.

(even if the conference channel was cheaper than the ND exclusive channel)

I would dislike that any of my money is going to schools that I do not root for, even if in the same conference.

Yes, I know that the "ship has passed" on an Irish Network (damn it) and I would reluctantly pay for an ACC channel to get the ND content, but I would never watch any other teams play on it.

(I guess that the ACC would not care as it would have my money)

I am only interested in ND content and really only want to pay for that.

(07-09-2016 03:03 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 02:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 01:39 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 12:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 10:53 AM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  Other than Swofford being an alumnus from the school you root for, what has he really accomplished for the league that gives you such confidence in his ability? My problems with him stem from:

1. The lowest television deal, despite all of his connections.
2. Agreeing to the original deal without going to other companies to at least try and leverage a counter offer into a higher offer from ESPN.
3. Inclusion of Raycom in the deal (saved the company his son helps to run).
4. The increases in payout with the inclusion of new teams pales when you consider how the extensions to the deal and the back loaded nature help to dampen the increases.
5. Reneging on the stance of no partial memberships.
6. His unfair handling of state and team issues:

SC has Confederate flag issue, he leads the charge for removing baseball tournament from Greenville SC (which is fine). The tournament is moved to NC. However, NC has the transgender flareup in state laws being passed, and he says he will 'monitor the issue', but no changes in venue occurs. ACC football championship game struggles in Florida, it gets moved to Charlotte, NC. Basketball tournament is in Greensboro, NC. (Under his guidance, all of the big three championships end up in NC).

He cost the conference the Gator Bowl when he forced them to take another team when they wanted Clemson because of our travelling fans (passed the rule about not jumping other teams with at least a 2 game better record the very next year). The Gator Bowl broke with the ACC because it did not want to risk teams that do not travel being forced on them. He was caught unawares in regards to the Big 12 and SEC scheduling against each other for their 2nd place teams in a guaranteed bowl, leaving slim options for the ACC. The Orange Bowl deal is a real head scratcher in that we supposedly own the bowl, but the agreement ends up that the team the ACC plays in the bowl gets the same money as the team that owns the bowl (could have been a way to decrease the money disparity between ACC and others). With the loss of the Peach (Chic-filet), which was not his fault, the ACC lost its second and third best bowl. Our number 2 bowl (Champs) is what used to be the Cirus Bowl (held in low repute, leading to Spurrier once quippping about Tennessee- you cant spell Citrus withour UT).

I can go on. Several years ago, he was ready to sanction Clemson football because of photos that had players in shells supposedly before they were allowed to. They then receive photos of UNC football players in the same situation, and suddenly no action is to be taken against any team. Or not going to bat for GT when they were sanctioned, but goes to UNC's hearing with the NCAA infractions people. Or how, under his leadership, his former team ends up with all of its former rivals on the schedule yearly, with the shortest distance to travel, avoiding the poorer recruiting grounds that are located in the Atlantic.

TL; DR, I view Swofford as subpar and unfair in his job performance.

You are either young or really new to CR.
1&2)
First I would suggest that you PM OmniOrange and ask him for all of the links about the ACC contract. He was collecting information to write a book on CR and is a wealth of information. The Big East folks monitored the ACC situation with great interest back before the Big East collapsed.
ESPN did make an initial offer to the ACC which Swofford rejected. The ACC then flirted with FOX in a successful effort to get more money out of ESPN. When the deal was signed most of the folks on the Big East board where amazed at the amount the ACC was able to get. The contract was only great until the next deal was negotiated. The ACC was a victim of circumstance by going first ni contrac.t negotiations.
3) back in the old days the only exposure for the ACC came from the old CD Chesley/Jefferson-Pilot/Raycom networks. Their approach was unique in that the networks sold the games to individual stations in different ACC markets and the stations themselves sold local firms advertising that appeared only on those stations. Over a period of time these local companies along with the stations were able to create a local identity with the ACC. This was during a time when the "big boys" of the broadcast world paid very little attention to the ACC. The Raycom deal was a matter of loyalty and was facilitated by the University Presidents. They realized that local companies had allowed the ACC to take root and grow in a time that without the help of some creative marketing the ACC would not have become an established brand. But a sense of brotherhood is what has distinguished the ACC from other leagues from the start, and you don't leave behind the ones that helped you get where you are. LP4 would be a good source of information about the history of the ACC and the relationship of the conference with local broadcast partners.

If the ACC is truly your league, spend some time to learn instead of believing everything you read on the internet.

I know the history. As for the deal, Swofford took the first offer to get counteroffers, but the second offer from ESPN he accepted with the caveat to include Raycom in the subleasing of games. The second offer he did not take to other bidders, opting to close the deal with ESPN.

Just because Jefferson Pilot carried games decades ago is not a reason to basically subsidize them. Ever consider that is why all of the Tier 3 games are included in the contract? Also, their production quality stinks. What you are supporting is a good ole boys setup that is still a problem to this day.

Swofford has now been coy with the idea of a network for 5-6 years (?), and, if the blog referenced in this thread is true, we end up with a web-based platform, it to me means several things. 1) ESPN is still giving us the stepchild treatment, 2) Swofford's decision to roll all tier 3 content into the deal is going to haunt us, 3) The conference will be in major trouble toward the end of the current contract.

Louc C. recently has written about his fear of a watered-down channel with an accompanying lengthing of the contract of 10 years. That now could be a serious danger.

As for the landscape changing, so what? I do not think ESPN is worried about the SEC network being a dinosaur. It looks like we may be the guinea pig that ESPN chooses to endanger and the SEC Network will get the benefit of what they learn when/if they need to transition it over.

I do not think a web-based service will make enough money to be considered a success in the terms that the ACC needs it to. I, for example, love to follow Clemson sports; I will not pay for a streaming service to watch olympic sports. Consider that other dedicated channels have a football/basketball component to generate interest that then allows olympic sports a venue to be showcased. That will not happen successfully with a stand-alone streaming service.

Niche programming will attract niche markets. How small will the ACC niche market be?

If the window has truly closed on true OTA conference channels, then the ACC is in real trouble.

I understand that some fans could care less about certain sports and are passionate about others. I guess my question for you irh is this, how many away Clemson football games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson men's basketball basketball games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson women's basketball games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson baseball games would you $10 to see on a streaming service? How many men's and women's soccer games? How many men's and women's lacrosse?

What if you could watch 5 various Clemson games in a month you either can't get to when they are played at home or are on the road? Would that be worth $10 to an ACC streaming service?

I would pay a lot for an ND streaming channel that just showed ND content.

I would dislike paying for an all-ACC channel (or any other conference channel) because I dislike having to pay for content that I don't watch or even want.

(even if the conference channel was cheaper than the ND exclusive channel)

I would dislike that any of my money is going to schools that I do not root for, even if in the same conference.

Yes, I know that the "ship has passed" on an Irish Network (damn it) and I would reluctantly pay for an ACC channel to get the ND content, but I would never watch any other teams play on it.

(I guess that the ACC would not care as it would have my money)

I am only interested in ND content and really only want to pay for that.

My example would vary from fan to fan but I appreciate your reckonizing the value of the steaming service.

Consider the "other" ACC games free of charge.

(07-09-2016 03:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 03:03 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 02:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 01:39 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 12:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  You are either young or really new to CR.
1&2)
First I would suggest that you PM OmniOrange and ask him for all of the links about the ACC contract. He was collecting information to write a book on CR and is a wealth of information. The Big East folks monitored the ACC situation with great interest back before the Big East collapsed.
ESPN did make an initial offer to the ACC which Swofford rejected. The ACC then flirted with FOX in a successful effort to get more money out of ESPN. When the deal was signed most of the folks on the Big East board where amazed at the amount the ACC was able to get. The contract was only great until the next deal was negotiated. The ACC was a victim of circumstance by going first ni contrac.t negotiations.
3) back in the old days the only exposure for the ACC came from the old CD Chesley/Jefferson-Pilot/Raycom networks. Their approach was unique in that the networks sold the games to individual stations in different ACC markets and the stations themselves sold local firms advertising that appeared only on those stations. Over a period of time these local companies along with the stations were able to create a local identity with the ACC. This was during a time when the "big boys" of the broadcast world paid very little attention to the ACC. The Raycom deal was a matter of loyalty and was facilitated by the University Presidents. They realized that local companies had allowed the ACC to take root and grow in a time that without the help of some creative marketing the ACC would not have become an established brand. But a sense of brotherhood is what has distinguished the ACC from other leagues from the start, and you don't leave behind the ones that helped you get where you are. LP4 would be a good source of information about the history of the ACC and the relationship of the conference with local broadcast partners.

If the ACC is truly your league, spend some time to learn instead of believing everything you read on the internet.

I know the history. As for the deal, Swofford took the first offer to get counteroffers, but the second offer from ESPN he accepted with the caveat to include Raycom in the subleasing of games. The second offer he did not take to other bidders, opting to close the deal with ESPN.

Just because Jefferson Pilot carried games decades ago is not a reason to basically subsidize them. Ever consider that is why all of the Tier 3 games are included in the contract? Also, their production quality stinks. What you are supporting is a good ole boys setup that is still a problem to this day.

Swofford has now been coy with the idea of a network for 5-6 years (?), and, if the blog referenced in this thread is true, we end up with a web-based platform, it to me means several things. 1) ESPN is still giving us the stepchild treatment, 2) Swofford's decision to roll all tier 3 content into the deal is going to haunt us, 3) The conference will be in major trouble toward the end of the current contract.

Louc C. recently has written about his fear of a watered-down channel with an accompanying lengthing of the contract of 10 years. That now could be a serious danger.

As for the landscape changing, so what? I do not think ESPN is worried about the SEC network being a dinosaur. It looks like we may be the guinea pig that ESPN chooses to endanger and the SEC Network will get the benefit of what they learn when/if they need to transition it over.

I do not think a web-based service will make enough money to be considered a success in the terms that the ACC needs it to. I, for example, love to follow Clemson sports; I will not pay for a streaming service to watch olympic sports. Consider that other dedicated channels have a football/basketball component to generate interest that then allows olympic sports a venue to be showcased. That will not happen successfully with a stand-alone streaming service.

Niche programming will attract niche markets. How small will the ACC niche market be?

If the window has truly closed on true OTA conference channels, then the ACC is in real trouble.

I understand that some fans could care less about certain sports and are passionate about others. I guess my question for you irh is this, how many away Clemson football games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson men's basketball basketball games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson women's basketball games would you pay $10 to see on a streaming service? How many Clemson baseball games would you $10 to see on a streaming service? How many men's and women's soccer games? How many men's and women's lacrosse?

What if you could watch 5 various Clemson games in a month you either can't get to when they are played at home or are on the road? Would that be worth $10 to an ACC streaming service?

I would pay a lot for an ND streaming channel that just showed ND content.

I would dislike paying for an all-ACC channel (or any other conference channel) because I dislike having to pay for content that I don't watch or even want.

(even if the conference channel was cheaper than the ND exclusive channel)

I would dislike that any of my money is going to schools that I do not root for, even if in the same conference.

Yes, I know that the "ship has passed" on an Irish Network (damn it) and I would reluctantly pay for an ACC channel to get the ND content, but I would never watch any other teams play on it.

(I guess that the ACC would not care as it would have my money)

I am only interested in ND content and really only want to pay for that.

My example would vary from fan to fan but I appreciate your reckonizing the value of the steaming service.

Consider the "other" ACC games free of charge.

Can I block them? :)