Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
Author Message
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #21
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-05-2016 10:09 AM)wrigley2 Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 09:13 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 08:58 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  
(08-04-2016 11:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(08-04-2016 11:12 PM)L-yes Wrote:  I read an article that was a profile of Jim Delany and the development and launch of the B1G Network. Delany made a comment that resonated with me when the ACC announced its deal. Contrary to message board dogma and the orthodoxy that says it's ALL football driven when it comes to realignment and network considerations, the B1G didn't really take off until basketball season. It was the volume of content that was unavailable that was maintaining steady pressure on the providers to pick up the network as an offering in their package. If this is the case, and this plays a larger role than anyone chattering on these boards realizes, I absolutely believe it will be on par with those two leagues.


I've been saying that since 2008 or 2009. I believe he said that initially after the first or second year anniversary of the BTN.

My concerns with a possible linear ACC Network have always centered around the footprint and the specific model of conference networks being state-wide supported, not its lack of prowess with football. ACC only owns two states - North Carolina and Virginia and good representation in Florida, South Carolina, and upstate New York.

It would seem to me with an ACCN, with ND as a partial member, and with hit and miss media markets in states where there isn't likely to be statewide support, the success of an ACCN may come down to can the current model of linear conference networks be modified to work within specific markets such as NYC, Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, DC, Pitt, and Louisville - if not at full-price but at least half- price?

Cheers,
Neil

I think you underestimate some states. The ACC doesn't have to own states, they just enough support to get the full in-state carriage.

As you said NC, and Va are locks, but I think South Carolina and Florida are too.

Between Miami and FSU that's a bigger foothold that Florida. Clemson has become hugely popular in SC. Outside of Columbia Clemson has picked up the casual fan.

Georgia and Kentucky will represent well too. Yes Georgia Tech is not the flagship school of Georgia, but the number of Clemson and FSU alumni in the Atlanta metro area is the highest of any location outside their homestates.

The ACC is syndicated regionally all over the state of Georgia.

Louisville is the #1 college basketball market in the country. The SECN & the ACCN should both do well here. How will the B1GN fit in Louisville when all 3 are competing?

Neil, I would think that ESPN would "bundle" SECN and ACCN. Strength with strength, statewide.

That's a possibility, but apparently at the moment, the asking price is the same as the SEC's subscription fees. Will the ACC get it in the entire state of Georgia or will it be negotiated downward?

Again, plenty of time to see what develops. Might be what that first look-in 2021 is about.

Cheers,
Neil
08-05-2016 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lou_C Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,505
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 201
I Root For: Florida State
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
It's really going to have little to do with the vagaries of how much of a state the ACC carries. I don't think it will come down to actuaries trying to determine how many fans in Atlanta watch ACC games, etc.

The way they've timed this, what will really matter much more is ESPN's leverage once 2019 comes around, and whether they can slam this down carrier's throats with the other channels they have up for contract. Carriers will either be able to push back or not, but I think it will have a lot less to do with the following of the ACC in any given market, and a lot more about how much clout ESPN has at that time.

It would be different if the ACC was trying to get this picked up on it's own, in between contracts. If ESPN is still powerful enough, they might indeed be able to jam the ACCN through at close to SECN rates packaged with their other channels.
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2016 12:16 PM by Lou_C.)
08-05-2016 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
L-yes Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,596
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 67
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-05-2016 10:32 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Don't fall for this tomfoolery, Florida State fans.

Clearly this is just another trick by John "Ninja Swoff" Swofford designed to get you to sign off on a longterm agreement that is against your interests.

He may have fooled multiple school presidents, your athletic director, all of your coaches, your Board of Trustees and teams of lawyers, but don't let him fool you!




Yes, its a scheme to keep you from joining the ranks of the illustrious Big 12. Just imagine, you too could be fighting over whether you want to add ECU or UCF to the conference for no reason.
08-05-2016 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
L-yes Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,596
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 67
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-05-2016 11:10 AM)omniorange Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 10:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 09:08 AM)omniorange Wrote:  ...the Atlanta metro area is a good example of where I was heading with this discussion, with the ACCN potentially being a hybrid of the current state-model with a metro-area strategy to support it as well that I listed in my post above.

Cheers,
Neil

To illustrate your point, here are populations for states and their major cities:

State of Georgia 10.1 million
Greater Atlanta Area 5.5 million
percent in city 54.46% <- GT delivers

State of Kentucky 4.4 million
Greater Louisville 1.3 million
percent in city 29.55% <- UL delivers

State of Massachusetts 6.7 million
Greater Boston Area 4.6 million
percent in city 68.66% <- BC delivers

State of New York 19.7 million
Greater NYC Area 20.2 million (includes parts of NJ and CT)
just New York City 8.4 million
percent NOT in city 57.36% <- Syracuse delivers

And to be honest, I think Louisville probably delivers the entire state of KY.

Thanks, this is where my thoughts were headed. We have heard for quite a while now that an ACC Network wasn't viable despite its large footprint. One of the reasons why was because analysts were always hung up on the "state" model of the BTN and later the SECN.

In a post back in January 2010, I said that if the Big East or the ACC ever tried to launch a conference network it would probably need to be a combination of a state (in some cases) and metro-area (in other cases) model. The downside for the Big East is that most of those metro areas would likely be designated pro sports cities and not get full price.

I am fascinated to see how the linear ACCN channel develops and if its development attempts to take the same road as the BTN, PACN, and SECN or if it might blaze a new path or not.

Still, there's time for that yet.

Cheers,
Neil

This isn't scientific but it's an interesting illustrative tool that helps make my point:

[Image: tumblr_obg72esZ5h1t9jwa9o1_1280.jpg]

This is an image from a map the NYT put together a few years ago using facebook "favorite college" data to illustrate the dispersion of university fandoms across the country.

If you'll notice Louisville is dominant in the metro but that light blue path bisecting the state is comprised of 20% or higher concentration of Louisville fans. The same as you head north into Indiana bracketing IU and Bloomington. We register all the way into extreme eastern Kentucky where Va Tech fans start to register. You can also get the sense of our popularity relative to other universities including Auburn, Ole Miss, Michigan State, Clemson, TAMU, etc. Look at Notre Dame's domination of not just Indiana but Chicago.

The map is interactive, it can be viewed and manipulated here;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/...12,-87.135
08-05-2016 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #25
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-05-2016 09:08 AM)omniorange Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 08:58 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  
(08-04-2016 11:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(08-04-2016 11:12 PM)L-yes Wrote:  
(08-04-2016 07:21 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  Whit Babcock was on Sirius with Mark Packer a couple hours ago. They were talking about the ACC network, and he very explicitly reiterated that the deal will put the ACC on the level of B1G and SEC and separate them from the PAC and B12. Now, I'll still believe it when I see it on 2020 but he was unequivocal, and I don't think he's a guy that you would normally chalk up to be a liar or stupid. So that's encouraging.

I do expect the Big 12 to expand and improve their deal, and the Pac to eventually get carriage and start picking up, so I don't expect there to be significant separation really or at least for long, but if we're in the B1G/SEC neighborhood we'll be ok.

I read an article that was a profile of Jim Delany and the development and launch of the B1G Network. Delany made a comment that resonated with me when the ACC announced its deal. Contrary to message board dogma and the orthodoxy that says it's ALL football driven when it comes to realignment and network considerations, the B1G didn't really take off until basketball season. It was the volume of content that was unavailable that was maintaining steady pressure on the providers to pick up the network as an offering in their package. If this is the case, and this plays a larger role than anyone chattering on these boards realizes, I absolutely believe it will be on par with those two leagues.


I've been saying that since 2008 or 2009. I believe he said that initially after the first or second year anniversary of the BTN.

My concerns with a possible linear ACC Network have always centered around the footprint and the specific model of conference networks being state-wide supported, not its lack of prowess with football. ACC only owns two states - North Carolina and Virginia and good representation in Florida, South Carolina, and upstate New York.

It would seem to me with an ACCN, with ND as a partial member, and with hit and miss media markets in states where there isn't likely to be statewide support, the success of an ACCN may come down to can the current model of linear conference networks be modified to work within specific markets such as NYC, Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, DC, Pitt, and Louisville - if not at full-price but at least half- price?

Cheers,
Neil

I think you underestimate some states. The ACC doesn't have to own states, they just enough support to get the full in-state carriage.

As you said NC, and Va are locks, but I think South Carolina and Florida are too.

Between Miami and FSU that's a bigger foothold that Florida. Clemson has become hugely popular in SC. Outside of Columbia Clemson has picked up the casual fan.

Georgia and Kentucky will represent well too. Yes Georgia Tech is not the flagship school of Georgia, but the number of Clemson and FSU alumni in the Atlanta metro area is the highest of any location outside their homestates.

The ACC is syndicated regionally all over the state of Georgia.

Don't disagree with anything you say above, particularly in terms of Florida and South Carolina, which is why they followed the "owned" states of Virginia and North Carolina.

However, as I think you know, being syndicated regionally for games here and there is not quite the same as forking out subscription fees month after month for a linear network. I do think the Atlanta metro area is a good example of where I was heading with this discussion, with the ACCN potentially being a hybrid of the current state-model with a metro-area strategy to support it as well that I listed in my post above.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I think you will see that ESPN will market the ACCN along side of the SECN for maximum penetration. Those season ending games will start to be spread out in the season to create must see ACC/SEC matchups.
For the Atlanta market, I think you will see a six team rotation (three each from the SEC and ACC). On the ACC side you will see Ga. Tech, Clemson, and Carolina, while on the SEC side you will see 'lil carolina, Auburn and Georgia. In a six year period you might find Clemson playing South Carolina three times, Auburn twice and Georgia once. I think every team would go in this rotation except Auburn and Carolina which I don't think would ever meet
(no real history).
I think you will see a similar rotation with Va. Tech, Louisville, and Pitt with West Virginia (yes they will end up in the SEC) Tennessee, and Kentucky.
Heck your might even have a deal with the devil, I mean the B1G, with Syracuse, Boston College and UVa and Maryland, Penn State and Rutgers (after all, money is money).
If the Big 12 stays intact or expands, similar arrangements could be worked out with the SEC and B1G in the west.
If there is some cooperation once things get settled, then everyone will be able to get their rate, even with shrinking numbers of cable customers.
08-05-2016 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #26
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
Just a reminder that even though the ACCN is set to launch in 2019, some of the bigger cable/satellite companies are not expected to renegotiate with ESPN (and thus ESPN and SECN) until 2021 and 2022 per this article that was previously posted on this board:

ACCN to debut in era of cost-cutting

ACC Network’s first test comes next summer when ESPN starts negotiating a new affiliate deal with Altice, a negotiation that promises to be a tough sell since the cable operator has systems near New York City, which is a long way from ACC member Syracuse and not really part of the conference’s footprint. One of the few cable operators that does not carry SEC Network, Altice has been public about its desire to cut costs.

ESPN could cut individual ACC Network deals, but most programmers and distributors like to wait until their big affiliate deals expire — and ESPN’s biggest ones aren’t up until several years after ACC Network’s planned 2019 launch. ESPN’s affiliate deals with Comcast and Charter expire in 2021; ESPN’s Dish Network deal runs until 2022.


Cheers,
Neil
08-05-2016 07:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 449
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #27
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
Are you saying that Clemson is going to give up its annual game versus South Carolina? I must be misunderstanding you here because there's no way they would ever agree to that - nor should they.
08-05-2016 09:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #28
Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
Replace the ACC/B1G challenge with an ACC/SEC challenge & perhaps carry it over to football?
08-06-2016 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
L-yes Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,596
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 67
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-05-2016 09:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Are you saying that Clemson is going to give up its annual game versus South Carolina? I must be misunderstanding you here because there's no way they would ever agree to that - nor should they.

Yeah, that's not going to happen at all. The backbone of rivalry week has become ACC/SEC matchups across the south. That's not changing, in fact its success has probably driven things in this direction.

What we will see happen more often is Sec/ACC matchups that aren't traditional rivalries. We opened with Auburn last year and Alabama in couple of years. It's not concidental that those games materialized for Louisville.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2016 09:04 AM by L-yes.)
08-06-2016 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #30
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-05-2016 09:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Are you saying that Clemson is going to give up its annual game versus South Carolina? I must be misunderstanding you here because there's no way they would ever agree to that - nor should they.

There was a post on another board that showed the TV ratings of the Houston market on the weekend of the Texas/Oklahoma game. The RRSO ranked 4th in that market for that day. The premier game for both schools, played in the State of Texas, was less popular than three other games played on the same day in Houston.
That slide in popularity in Houston is really where all of the Houston to the Big 12 talk is coming from.
To answer your question....yes I do think that it is possible that Clemson/South Carolina might be played less frequently depending on the conference demands on both teams re: number of conference games played per year. I think that is possible with all of the schools I mentioned, in order to create inter-conference match-ups that might be more appealing to a wider audience (Georgia/Clemson might be more marketable than Georgia/Ga. Tech, or North Carolina/South Carolina might be more marketable than Clemson/South Carolina).
We are now in the entertainment business, and as such must put better product on the air to compete with the best of other conferences. To this end, I think you will see more cooperation between conferences (especially the ACC and SEC) to coordinate scheduling to put more premier product on national broadcasts.
08-06-2016 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
L-yes Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,596
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 67
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-06-2016 10:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 09:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Are you saying that Clemson is going to give up its annual game versus South Carolina? I must be misunderstanding you here because there's no way they would ever agree to that - nor should they.

There was a post on another board that showed the TV ratings of the Houston market on the weekend of the Texas/Oklahoma game. The RRSO ranked 4th in that market for that day. The premier game for both schools, played in the State of Texas, was less popular than three other games played on the same day in Houston.
That slide in popularity in Houston is really where all of the Houston to the Big 12 talk is coming from.
To answer your question....yes I do think that it is possible that Clemson/South Carolina might be played less frequently depending on the conference demands on both teams re: number of conference games played per year. I think that is possible with all of the schools I mentioned, in order to create inter-conference match-ups that might be more appealing to a wider audience (Georgia/Clemson might be more marketable than Georgia/Ga. Tech, or North Carolina/South Carolina might be more marketable than Clemson/South Carolina).
We are now in the entertainment business, and as such must put better product on the air to compete with the best of other conferences. To this end, I think you will see more cooperation between conferences (especially the ACC and SEC) to coordinate scheduling to put more premier product on national broadcasts.


What you're saying makes no sense. They are not going to cancel rivalry week. You're comparing apples to oranges with no solid correlation.
08-06-2016 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #32
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-05-2016 01:10 PM)L-yes Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 11:10 AM)omniorange Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 10:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 09:08 AM)omniorange Wrote:  ...the Atlanta metro area is a good example of where I was heading with this discussion, with the ACCN potentially being a hybrid of the current state-model with a metro-area strategy to support it as well that I listed in my post above.

Cheers,
Neil

To illustrate your point, here are populations for states and their major cities:

State of Georgia 10.1 million
Greater Atlanta Area 5.5 million
percent in city 54.46% <- GT delivers

State of Kentucky 4.4 million
Greater Louisville 1.3 million
percent in city 29.55% <- UL delivers

State of Massachusetts 6.7 million
Greater Boston Area 4.6 million
percent in city 68.66% <- BC delivers

State of New York 19.7 million
Greater NYC Area 20.2 million (includes parts of NJ and CT)
just New York City 8.4 million
percent NOT in city 57.36% <- Syracuse delivers

And to be honest, I think Louisville probably delivers the entire state of KY.

Thanks, this is where my thoughts were headed. We have heard for quite a while now that an ACC Network wasn't viable despite its large footprint. One of the reasons why was because analysts were always hung up on the "state" model of the BTN and later the SECN.

In a post back in January 2010, I said that if the Big East or the ACC ever tried to launch a conference network it would probably need to be a combination of a state (in some cases) and metro-area (in other cases) model. The downside for the Big East is that most of those metro areas would likely be designated pro sports cities and not get full price.

I am fascinated to see how the linear ACCN channel develops and if its development attempts to take the same road as the BTN, PACN, and SECN or if it might blaze a new path or not.

Still, there's time for that yet.

Cheers,
Neil

This isn't scientific but it's an interesting illustrative tool that helps make my point:

[Image: tumblr_obg72esZ5h1t9jwa9o1_1280.jpg]

This is an image from a map the NYT put together a few years ago using facebook "favorite college" data to illustrate the dispersion of university fandoms across the country.

If you'll notice Louisville is dominant in the metro but that light blue path bisecting the state is comprised of 20% or higher concentration of Louisville fans. The same as you head north into Indiana bracketing IU and Bloomington. We register all the way into extreme eastern Kentucky where Va Tech fans start to register. You can also get the sense of our popularity relative to other universities including Auburn, Ole Miss, Michigan State, Clemson, TAMU, etc. Look at Notre Dame's domination of not just Indiana but Chicago.

The map is interactive, it can be viewed and manipulated here;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/...12,-87.135

One of my favorite maps ever. But, if one uses this as a barometer (and its not necessarily a good one since it is football related and doesn't include bb), it kind of illustrates my point that for the vast majority of the geographical state of Kentucky, Louisville is less than 20% in terms of college football (all the dark blue areas and most of the blue areas).

But in all of the yellow areas and the light, light blue areas, an ACCN should definitely get on in those TVHHs, which population wise is probably a larger percentage than geographic percentage. Again though, I acknowledge it's college football and not all college athletics.

Cheers,
Neil
08-06-2016 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #33
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
The look-ins were part of the previous contract. I don't remember if they came in with SU/Pitt or ND.

If Clemson vs South Carolina was never televised again, they would still play. Donations are still a major source of revenue and this game affects donations. Same for GT/UGA, etc.
08-06-2016 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #34
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-06-2016 10:39 AM)L-yes Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 10:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 09:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Are you saying that Clemson is going to give up its annual game versus South Carolina? I must be misunderstanding you here because there's no way they would ever agree to that - nor should they.

There was a post on another board that showed the TV ratings of the Houston market on the weekend of the Texas/Oklahoma game. The RRSO ranked 4th in that market for that day. The premier game for both schools, played in the State of Texas, was less popular than three other games played on the same day in Houston.
That slide in popularity in Houston is really where all of the Houston to the Big 12 talk is coming from.
To answer your question....yes I do think that it is possible that Clemson/South Carolina might be played less frequently depending on the conference demands on both teams re: number of conference games played per year. I think that is possible with all of the schools I mentioned, in order to create inter-conference match-ups that might be more appealing to a wider audience (Georgia/Clemson might be more marketable than Georgia/Ga. Tech, or North Carolina/South Carolina might be more marketable than Clemson/South Carolina).
We are now in the entertainment business, and as such must put better product on the air to compete with the best of other conferences. To this end, I think you will see more cooperation between conferences (especially the ACC and SEC) to coordinate scheduling to put more premier product on national broadcasts.


What you're saying makes no sense. They are not going to cancel rivalry week. You're comparing apples to oranges with no solid correlation.

Why not?
Rivalry week was an ESPN invention. We had to move the NC State game from the usual October date until the end of November. A date that they had not occupied for over 100 years.
Why not have rivalry of the week instead. By not placing all of the "good" games on the last weekend of the season, maybe viewership would increase and demand for network subscriptions would rise.
How can you say that doesn't make sense?
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2016 01:52 PM by XLance.)
08-06-2016 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #35
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-06-2016 01:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 10:39 AM)L-yes Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 10:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 09:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Are you saying that Clemson is going to give up its annual game versus South Carolina? I must be misunderstanding you here because there's no way they would ever agree to that - nor should they.

There was a post on another board that showed the TV ratings of the Houston market on the weekend of the Texas/Oklahoma game. The RRSO ranked 4th in that market for that day. The premier game for both schools, played in the State of Texas, was less popular than three other games played on the same day in Houston.
That slide in popularity in Houston is really where all of the Houston to the Big 12 talk is coming from.
To answer your question....yes I do think that it is possible that Clemson/South Carolina might be played less frequently depending on the conference demands on both teams re: number of conference games played per year. I think that is possible with all of the schools I mentioned, in order to create inter-conference match-ups that might be more appealing to a wider audience (Georgia/Clemson might be more marketable than Georgia/Ga. Tech, or North Carolina/South Carolina might be more marketable than Clemson/South Carolina).
We are now in the entertainment business, and as such must put better product on the air to compete with the best of other conferences. To this end, I think you will see more cooperation between conferences (especially the ACC and SEC) to coordinate scheduling to put more premier product on national broadcasts.


What you're saying makes no sense. They are not going to cancel rivalry week. You're comparing apples to oranges with no solid correlation.

Why not?
Rivalry week was an ESPN invention. We had to move the NC State game from the usual October date until the end of November. A date that they had not occupied for over 100 years.
Why not have rivalry of the week instead. By not placing all of the "good" games on the last weekend of the season, maybe viewership would increase and demand for network subscriptions would rise.
How can you say that doesn't make sense?

This actually makes sense to me but I don't think you want to push it too far back in the season either since college football ratings tend to be higher in late October and November than in September and early October.

Cheers,
Neil
08-06-2016 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
A look in after 2 1/2 years? Were talking the end of the NCAA Basketball Tourney in 2022. Think about that! It is exactly the time when schools begin to look at giving a two year notice if they are going to leave and it is exactly when the remain GOR in the Big 12 starts to be affordable. So two year notice in 2022 and out after the 2024 season. It also puts you up to bat before the Big 10 and just slightly before the SEC starts to renegotiate their contract with CBS. I'm betting ESPN set that date for a very good reason. We'll see.
08-06-2016 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #37
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-06-2016 03:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A look in after 2 1/2 years? Were talking the end of the NCAA Basketball Tourney in 2022. Think about that! It is exactly the time when schools begin to look at giving a two year notice if they are going to leave and it is exactly when the remain GOR in the Big 12 starts to be affordable. So two year notice in 2022 and out after the 2024 season. It also puts you up to bat before the Big 10 and just slightly before the SEC starts to renegotiate their contract with CBS. I'm betting ESPN set that date for a very good reason. We'll see.

I think it is more tied to the article I linked a few posts above regarding where the ACCN stands in terms of Comcast, Charter (which is now combined with Time Warner and named Spectrum), and DISH are in terms of carriage.

Cheers,
Neil
08-06-2016 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
L-yes Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,596
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 67
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-06-2016 11:36 AM)omniorange Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 01:10 PM)L-yes Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 11:10 AM)omniorange Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 10:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 09:08 AM)omniorange Wrote:  ...the Atlanta metro area is a good example of where I was heading with this discussion, with the ACCN potentially being a hybrid of the current state-model with a metro-area strategy to support it as well that I listed in my post above.

Cheers,
Neil

To illustrate your point, here are populations for states and their major cities:

State of Georgia 10.1 million
Greater Atlanta Area 5.5 million
percent in city 54.46% <- GT delivers

State of Kentucky 4.4 million
Greater Louisville 1.3 million
percent in city 29.55% <- UL delivers

State of Massachusetts 6.7 million
Greater Boston Area 4.6 million
percent in city 68.66% <- BC delivers

State of New York 19.7 million
Greater NYC Area 20.2 million (includes parts of NJ and CT)
just New York City 8.4 million
percent NOT in city 57.36% <- Syracuse delivers

And to be honest, I think Louisville probably delivers the entire state of KY.

Thanks, this is where my thoughts were headed. We have heard for quite a while now that an ACC Network wasn't viable despite its large footprint. One of the reasons why was because analysts were always hung up on the "state" model of the BTN and later the SECN.

In a post back in January 2010, I said that if the Big East or the ACC ever tried to launch a conference network it would probably need to be a combination of a state (in some cases) and metro-area (in other cases) model. The downside for the Big East is that most of those metro areas would likely be designated pro sports cities and not get full price.

I am fascinated to see how the linear ACCN channel develops and if its development attempts to take the same road as the BTN, PACN, and SECN or if it might blaze a new path or not.

Still, there's time for that yet.

Cheers,
Neil

This isn't scientific but it's an interesting illustrative tool that helps make my point:

[Image: tumblr_obg72esZ5h1t9jwa9o1_1280.jpg]

This is an image from a map the NYT put together a few years ago using facebook "favorite college" data to illustrate the dispersion of university fandoms across the country.

If you'll notice Louisville is dominant in the metro but that light blue path bisecting the state is comprised of 20% or higher concentration of Louisville fans. The same as you head north into Indiana bracketing IU and Bloomington. We register all the way into extreme eastern Kentucky where Va Tech fans start to register. You can also get the sense of our popularity relative to other universities including Auburn, Ole Miss, Michigan State, Clemson, TAMU, etc. Look at Notre Dame's domination of not just Indiana but Chicago.

The map is interactive, it can be viewed and manipulated here;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/...12,-87.135

One of my favorite maps ever. But, if one uses this as a barometer (and its not necessarily a good one since it is football related and doesn't include bb), it kind of illustrates my point that for the vast majority of the geographical state of Kentucky, Louisville is less than 20% in terms of college football (all the dark blue areas and most of the blue areas).

But in all of the yellow areas and the light, light blue areas, an ACCN should definitely get on in those TVHHs, which population wise is probably a larger percentage than geographic percentage. Again though, I acknowledge it's college football and not all college athletics.

Cheers,
Neil

Like I previously mentioned, you're dealing with college fans in general and in the dark blue areas the population density is nil other than Lexington. If you're after eyeballs the yellow and light blue is what you want. Louisville will carry the state.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2016 05:58 PM by L-yes.)
08-06-2016 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #39
Re: RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-06-2016 03:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 03:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A look in after 2 1/2 years? Were talking the end of the NCAA Basketball Tourney in 2022. Think about that! It is exactly the time when schools begin to look at giving a two year notice if they are going to leave and it is exactly when the remain GOR in the Big 12 starts to be affordable. So two year notice in 2022 and out after the 2024 season. It also puts you up to bat before the Big 10 and just slightly before the SEC starts to renegotiate their contract with CBS. I'm betting ESPN set that date for a very good reason. We'll see.

I think it is more tied to the article I linked a few posts above regarding where the ACCN stands in terms of Comcast, Charter (which is now combined with Time Warner and named Spectrum), and DISH are in terms of carriage.

Cheers,
Neil

It would be a good time to discuss selling ACCX direct to consumers... But JR may also have a point.
08-06-2016 08:17 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #40
Re: RE: Warchant: New ACC/ESPN deal to provide three "look in" periods
(08-06-2016 01:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 10:39 AM)L-yes Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 10:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-05-2016 09:57 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Are you saying that Clemson is going to give up its annual game versus South Carolina? I must be misunderstanding you here because there's no way they would ever agree to that - nor should they.

There was a post on another board that showed the TV ratings of the Houston market on the weekend of the Texas/Oklahoma game. The RRSO ranked 4th in that market for that day. The premier game for both schools, played in the State of Texas, was less popular than three other games played on the same day in Houston.
That slide in popularity in Houston is really where all of the Houston to the Big 12 talk is coming from.
To answer your question....yes I do think that it is possible that Clemson/South Carolina might be played less frequently depending on the conference demands on both teams re: number of conference games played per year. I think that is possible with all of the schools I mentioned, in order to create inter-conference match-ups that might be more appealing to a wider audience (Georgia/Clemson might be more marketable than Georgia/Ga. Tech, or North Carolina/South Carolina might be more marketable than Clemson/South Carolina).
We are now in the entertainment business, and as such must put better product on the air to compete with the best of other conferences. To this end, I think you will see more cooperation between conferences (especially the ACC and SEC) to coordinate scheduling to put more premier product on national broadcasts.


What you're saying makes no sense. They are not going to cancel rivalry week. You're comparing apples to oranges with no solid correlation.

Why not?
Rivalry week was an ESPN invention. We had to move the NC State game from the usual October date until the end of November. A date that they had not occupied for over 100 years.
Why not have rivalry of the week instead. By not placing all of the "good" games on the last weekend of the season, maybe viewership would increase and demand for network subscriptions would rise.
How can you say that doesn't make sense?

Makes a lot of sense to space them out - as long as you play them some time.
08-06-2016 09:12 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.