ACC Network contract 'look-ins' provide comfort to FSU's Thrasher


In an exclusive interview Wednesday with Warchant.com, Thrasher explained that the ACC’s new contract with ESPN calls for three separate “look-in” periods -- times when executives from both entities will be able to sit down and discuss whether the contract terms needs to be renegotiated. The first of those previously unreported “look-ins” will occur in 2021, just two years after the new ACC Network is scheduled to launch on cable and satellite television.
“So there are going to be three opportunities during the course of the contract to take a look at it,” Thrasher told Warchant.com. “To take a step back and see how it’s doing: Do there need to be adjustments? Things like that. ESPN agreed to that. The ACC agreed to it. So the first one will be in 2021. So we’ll have about 2½ years of experience, and we’ll see where we are.
“If we have to make some adjustments, we’ll make some adjustments.”
If the college football landscape does change, or if the new network has any issues with distribution, Thrasher said he takes comfort in having the “look-in” periods as part of the contract.

(08-04-2016 11:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ACC Network contract 'look-ins' provide comfort to FSU's Thrasher


In an exclusive interview Wednesday with Warchant.com, Thrasher explained that the ACC’s new contract with ESPN calls for three separate “look-in” periods -- times when executives from both entities will be able to sit down and discuss whether the contract terms needs to be renegotiated. The first of those previously unreported “look-ins” will occur in 2021, just two years after the new ACC Network is scheduled to launch on cable and satellite television.
“So there are going to be three opportunities during the course of the contract to take a look at it,” Thrasher told Warchant.com. “To take a step back and see how it’s doing: Do there need to be adjustments? Things like that. ESPN agreed to that. The ACC agreed to it. So the first one will be in 2021. So we’ll have about 2½ years of experience, and we’ll see where we are.
“If we have to make some adjustments, we’ll make some adjustments.”
If the college football landscape does change, or if the new network has any issues with distribution, Thrasher said he takes comfort in having the “look-in” periods as part of the contract.

We're starting to see sanity in these things.

Yep! the ACC and ESPN are looking at the network as a long term relationship that has to be good for all parties.

(08-04-2016 03:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  Yep! the ACC and ESPN are looking at the network as a long term relationship that has to be good for all parties.

Indeed

yep, pretty much figured it would be included to the dismay of the GOR extension doomsdayers.

(08-04-2016 03:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  Yep! the ACC and ESPN are looking at the network as a long term relationship that has to be good for all parties.

Relationship. The key word. The B12 may be looking to screw over ESPN by adding teams that ESPN thinks will water down the product but which will result in short term gains for existing B12 members. The ACC is concentrating upon nurturing its long term relationship with ESPN. Which approach do you think works better in the long run?

A solid long term relationship will work just like a long term business relationship works with your bank as a preferred client!

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.

(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.

(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

(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 believe it was Lumberpack who linked an article here that says basketball would be the backbone of the ACCN. I wasnt able to find that thread though. He linked it shortly after the announcement of the ACCN

(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.

(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

(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.

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?

If the ACC continues to flourish like it started to in 2014 then these look-ins are going to be great. ACC has at least one championship in football, basketball, baseball, lacrosse, and soccer since 2014.

(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:  

(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.

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.

(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're missing part of the equation. In our case we are dominant in the metro area and surrounding counties. This accounts for a sizable portion of the population in the state AND southern Indiana. But once you get outside the areas our fan base dominates you continue to find the fanbbase with significant representation. In our region of the country college athletics dominates. UK fans will watch the ACC network. They're basketball fans too. They have a vested interest in our rivalries and college rivalries in general. I think ESPN is banking on this dynamic to some extent with the sister networks and fostering rivalries between the conferences so that you create a mutual interest.

UL/UK like to beat each other in everything. It doesn't matter what sport. Most geographic rivals are the same way. How do you make softball or soccer worth watching? You pit the rivals of the P5 against one another and their conference brethren. That's the most "quality content" you can create for dedicated networks and ESPN set the table to do just that.

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!

(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.

(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