(02-04-2017 11:37 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  And keep in mind: even if revenue all around declines, it's not about total profit it's still about total profit relative to your competition.

LHN is a good example of this. UT could probably make more total profit as part of a B12 network but it would be making equal profit relative to competitors like Texas Tech. With LHN they take a little less total possible profit but gain a huge advantage in profit relative to Tech.

There's no way that UTex would make more through a B12 network than it's currently making.

(02-04-2017 12:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:37 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  And keep in mind: even if revenue all around declines, it's not about total profit it's still about total profit relative to your competition.

LHN is a good example of this. UT could probably make more total profit as part of a B12 network but it would be making equal profit relative to competitors like Texas Tech. With LHN they take a little less total possible profit but gain a huge advantage in profit relative to Tech.

There's no way that UTex would make more through a B12 network than it's currently making.

I am assuming in a B12N model they don't have to split their money with the academic side of the university or have IMG get a share like they do with LHN

(02-04-2017 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 05:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Whether it is a boulder or a bubble at least the SEC guaranteed its rate with the SECN until 2034. And, at least we are first up on renegotiation with a network, CBS within two years. So we get to head to the trough next, and stay there the longest. Right now that's not a bad position to be in. The ACC I believe is positioned well also. You get a network in a couple of years and your deal extends to 2031 or thereabouts.

What I wouldn't want to be experiencing right now is a major overhaul in 6 years, or the expiration of an overvalued contract in 5 years. The Big 10's last FOX contract was a gamble that could pay off well, or not. The Big 12 is up against the wall.

And depending on how the courts play out the NLRB ruling, and the NCAA plays out stipends or pay for play, the stratification of the sport could yet be more extreme in its definition.

SEC gets most of its revenue for SECN from its 50% share of the profits. It can go up and down. There is only a small guarantee.

Bullet, you know that Billy Bob & Bubba are going to subscribe if they have to mortgage the house and put the kids to work. I'd say the SECN is pretty safe. We have the highest saturation numbers of any P conference and by a pretty decent margin. Actually the Big 12 is a little closer to us than the Big 10.

Relative to the others, yes. But as people cut the cable, its going to hurt all conference networks. That will happen. The only question is how long it takes. Its the % of population that is not watching now that won't be paying that will hurt cable networks.

Those who watch will simply pay more. So it's not going to be that dramatic of a change either way. We've probably peaked on revenue from television, but if there is a decline it will be much more gradual than many around here think.

They would go for a subscription model now if it was more profitable. Its not. All the conference networks will, at some point, make a lot less.

(02-04-2017 11:37 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  And keep in mind: even if revenue all around declines, it's not about total profit it's still about total profit relative to your competition.

LHN is a good example of this. UT could probably make more total profit as part of a B12 network but it would be making equal profit relative to competitors like Texas Tech. With LHN they take a little less total possible profit but gain a huge advantage in profit relative to Tech.

But if the SEC and Big 10 make $10 million a year now from their network while the others make $2 or $3 million and the model collapses, they will still make more but not by as much.

If under a new model they make $4 million while the others make $800k, its still 5 times as much, but its a gap of $3.2 million, not $8 million.

(02-03-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not at all.

It could simply be that they've decided the risk/penalty for breaking the contract is smaller than the cost of honoring it.


That shouldn't be the case, as I only see CFB viewership continuing to go up over time.

But they've got to figure out how to monetize that fact to the same magnitude as today's model of making every cable subscriber pay for it, regardless if they watch.

Lost in all of these conversations Bison is that ultimately the consumer will monetize whatever delivery system manifests itself as supreme and that the schools will simply make up for the loss of subscription fees through direct billing. It will be fairer. Now everyone gets that. What they don't realize is the actual cost of a ticket. At Auburn last year, and we aren't the highest in the SEC but certainly in the top 5 or 6 in ticket costs, you had to donate $800 - $1200 to qualify to buy two season tickets somewhere between the end zone and 10 yard line in the lower deck (the $800 range) or to sit in either of the upper decks (ranging from $800 - $1200 depending upon the yard line and elevation of the seats). The tickets are now in the $70 range per each for conference and other P5 games, $60 for G5, and $55 for FCS. So considering that most years we have a minimum of 7 games and that there is a 50.00 handling fee per ticket, the cost of a pair season books is now up to around $1,000, or higher in years with 8 games. My point being that even if streaming costs $200.00 for a season, and it won't, it is still a helluva savings over sitting in the end zone for $1800.00.

The SEC last year averaged 75,000 per game in attendance (bowls excluded). We would have set another record if not for Missouri's numbers tanking, but we still finished 11,000 per game better than the Big 10 (mostly due to Rutgers and Maryland numbers). At an Auburn home game of significance we have approximately 120,000 fans in and around the stadium with about 45,000 of those watching on HD's powered by generators at their tailgate slot. In short, as with Big 10 fans, people will pay whatever to be part of the experience whether that is at the venue, or in their home with friends.

I'm not so sure the ACC can say that. So when these almighty changes to cable come the Big 10 and SEC, and whichever conference most of the Big 12 schools find shelter in, will all manage just fine. Our saturation numbers within our own markets is quite high. That's not true at all for the PAC, and it lags in the ACC. If the model changes it will hurt most on the two coasts, and least in the heartland. But, it will enhance disparity between the two groups.

Because of all of this I found your declaration to be hyperbolic so I responded in kind. In reality not much is going to change for our two conferences or for Texas, Oklahoma and friends.

Now as to demographics and the popularity of football as a whole, it is changing. We may be at peak, or just past it. When Boomers and X'ers are gone football may not enjoy the top spot in status of sports. All of our schools need a 20 year plan in place to transition for that.

Ugh. So true.

(02-04-2017 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:37 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  And keep in mind: even if revenue all around declines, it's not about total profit it's still about total profit relative to your competition.

LHN is a good example of this. UT could probably make more total profit as part of a B12 network but it would be making equal profit relative to competitors like Texas Tech. With LHN they take a little less total possible profit but gain a huge advantage in profit relative to Tech.

But if the SEC and Big 10 make $10 million a year now from their network while the others make $2 or $3 million and the model collapses, they will still make more but not by as much.

If under a new model they make $4 million while the others make $800k, its still 5 times as much, but its a gap of $3.2 million, not $8 million.

Potentially yes

Of course no one has any idea what things will look like 10 years from now. There could be whole new models of revenue we haven't conceived of yet.

Interesting times

(02-04-2017 02:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:37 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  And keep in mind: even if revenue all around declines, it's not about total profit it's still about total profit relative to your competition.

LHN is a good example of this. UT could probably make more total profit as part of a B12 network but it would be making equal profit relative to competitors like Texas Tech. With LHN they take a little less total possible profit but gain a huge advantage in profit relative to Tech.

But if the SEC and Big 10 make $10 million a year now from their network while the others make $2 or $3 million and the model collapses, they will still make more but not by as much.

If under a new model they make $4 million while the others make $800k, its still 5 times as much, but its a gap of $3.2 million, not $8 million.

Potentially yes

Of course no one has any idea what things will look like 10 years from now. There could be whole new models of revenue we haven't conceived of yet.

Interesting times

Yes, this is essentially the whole argument in a nutshell. The large networks will get the political cover to morph into a new model. It's not in the interest of the stockholders, the public they serve, the political and tax ramifications, or the industry (one upon which our government relies for the dissemination of information) to have a radical and/or abrupt change.

Whatever we move into over the next 10 or so years will be done in some kind of an orderly fashion. I'm sure there will be new players, and different modes of delivery, but ESPN and FOX aren't going to be laid waste in some sweeping and immediate change of technology.

(02-04-2017 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 02:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:37 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  And keep in mind: even if revenue all around declines, it's not about total profit it's still about total profit relative to your competition.

LHN is a good example of this. UT could probably make more total profit as part of a B12 network but it would be making equal profit relative to competitors like Texas Tech. With LHN they take a little less total possible profit but gain a huge advantage in profit relative to Tech.

But if the SEC and Big 10 make $10 million a year now from their network while the others make $2 or $3 million and the model collapses, they will still make more but not by as much.

If under a new model they make $4 million while the others make $800k, its still 5 times as much, but its a gap of $3.2 million, not $8 million.

Potentially yes

Of course no one has any idea what things will look like 10 years from now. There could be whole new models of revenue we haven't conceived of yet.

Interesting times

Yes, this is essentially the whole argument in a nutshell. The large networks will get the political cover to morph into a new model. It's not in the interest of the stockholders, the public they serve, the political and tax ramifications, or the industry (one upon which our government relies for the dissemination of information) to have a radical and/or abrupt change.

Whatever we move into over the next 10 or so years will be done in some kind of an orderly fashion. I'm sure there will be new players, and different modes of delivery, but ESPN and FOX aren't going to be laid waste in some sweeping and immediate change of technology.

There was an AT&T exec in the 90s who was quoted in a seminar I went to about technology changes: "Change will not come as fast as you expect, but when it comes, it will be far more fundamental than you can imagine."

(02-04-2017 06:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 02:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:37 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  And keep in mind: even if revenue all around declines, it's not about total profit it's still about total profit relative to your competition.

LHN is a good example of this. UT could probably make more total profit as part of a B12 network but it would be making equal profit relative to competitors like Texas Tech. With LHN they take a little less total possible profit but gain a huge advantage in profit relative to Tech.

But if the SEC and Big 10 make $10 million a year now from their network while the others make $2 or $3 million and the model collapses, they will still make more but not by as much.

If under a new model they make $4 million while the others make $800k, its still 5 times as much, but its a gap of $3.2 million, not $8 million.

Potentially yes

Of course no one has any idea what things will look like 10 years from now. There could be whole new models of revenue we haven't conceived of yet.

Interesting times

Yes, this is essentially the whole argument in a nutshell. The large networks will get the political cover to morph into a new model. It's not in the interest of the stockholders, the public they serve, the political and tax ramifications, or the industry (one upon which our government relies for the dissemination of information) to have a radical and/or abrupt change.

Whatever we move into over the next 10 or so years will be done in some kind of an orderly fashion. I'm sure there will be new players, and different modes of delivery, but ESPN and FOX aren't going to be laid waste in some sweeping and immediate change of technology.

There was an AT&T exec in the 90s who was quoted in a seminar I went to about technology changes: "Change will not come as fast as you expect, but when it comes, it will be far more fundamental than you can imagine."

I completely expect those fundamental changes. I would say we are in the middle of them right now and that they are already impacting most if not all facets of our life. We are in the transition but having been associated with other forms of technological advances, the present systems will be transitioned slowly unless an emergency dictates otherwise. Why? Because if they are to be successful they cannot first be ruinous. Fundamental change has to become the foundation for what is to come and it has to replace the old foundations. That must be done slowly or it can be extremely destructive. Our country has been great about instituting fundamental changes in constructive ways. We've had very few catastrophic changes but the only one we saw coming and did nothing about was the one that led to the Civil War. That rift shattered because nothing was done about the issues for decades after they had been identified. So I expect this one to play out over a couple of decades and that's good. My children will be able to acclimate.
The change in technology that affects broadcasts and potentially sports revenue is just one aspect of a larger panorama of change that is underway. I'm hardly concerned with it. Our institutions will survive broadcast changes for football. It's the other ones coming that will take some getting used to.

To be honest a Big 12 network without UT is Ideal becasue you still get all the Texas away games and don't have to share the income with them. If the Big 12 can work something out with the PAC it could be a really perfect storm for both conferences to stay competitive with the ACC financially.

I still have a hard time believing the ACC network is going to be that popular but maybe there are other sports which will make up for the limited football fan following of most of the Northern schools in the conference.

Is a school like BC who draws 30k fans for home football games and has most home BB games with 3k - 5k fans really going to carry Massachusetts?

Can Syracuse football and it's horrid TV ratings, lack of national TV games in general , and terrible attendance really support a conference network in the Fall for the entire state of NY?

Can Notre Dame make up for what are obviously schools with limited fan support, especially BC? At least Syracuse has an upside in BB, I've yet to find the upside of BC. On paper they look like an mid level AAC team.

I think we learned with the PAC that unless you have really good fan support conference networks are not nearly as profitable as expected.

My guess is conference networks are a direct correlation to fan support. The ACC and PAC have similar fans support for FB but the ACC has a huge advantage in basketball and has ESPN on thier side which is good but certainly like a pimp who will take thier cut which the PAC does not have to do. I think it will end up being a wash with the ACCN making more money but ESPN taking so much it takes in income down to PAC levels.

SEC: The SEC struggled on the field by its standards. In the stands, the SEC remained the national leader in attendance (77,565 fans per game, down 1 percent from a record-breaking 2015 season).

Big Ten: In the first year with nine Big Ten games, the league averaged 66,162 fans (up less than 1 percent from 2015).

Big 12: Despite missing the College Football Playoff again, the Big 12 increased crowds by 1 percent to 57,238

Pac-12: Pac-12 crowds declined 3 percent to 50,112 and were down 14 percent since 2007.

ACC: At 49,827 fans per game, the basketball-centric ACC remained last among the Power Five

(02-05-2017 12:06 AM)p23570 Wrote:  To be honest a Big 12 network without UT is Ideal becasue you still get all the Texas away games and don't have to share the income with them. If the Big 12 can work something out with the PAC it could be a really perfect storm for both conferences to stay competitive with the ACC financially.

I still have a hard time believing the ACC network is going to be that popular but maybe there are other sports which will make up for the limited football fan following of most of the Northern schools in the conference.

Is a school like BC who draws 30k fans for home football games and has most home BB games with 3k - 5k fans really going to carry Massachusetts?

Can Syracuse football and it's horrid TV ratings, lack of national TV games in general , and terrible attendance really support a conference network in the Fall for the entire state of NY?

Can Notre Dame make up for what are obviously schools with limited fan support, especially BC? At least Syracuse has an upside in BB, I've yet to find the upside of BC. On paper they look like an mid level AAC team.

I think we learned with the PAC that unless you have really good fan support conference networks are not nearly as profitable as expected.

My guess is conference networks are a direct correlation to fan support. The ACC and PAC have similar fans support for FB but the ACC has a huge advantage in basketball and has ESPN on thier side which is good but certainly like a pimp who will take thier cut which the PAC does not have to do. I think it will end up being a wash with the ACCN making more money but ESPN taking so much it takes in income down to PAC levels.

SEC: The SEC struggled on the field by its standards. In the stands, the SEC remained the national leader in attendance (77,565 fans per game, down 1 percent from a record-breaking 2015 season).

Big Ten: In the first year with nine Big Ten games, the league averaged 66,162 fans (up less than 1 percent from 2015).

Big 12: Despite missing the College Football Playoff again, the Big 12 increased crowds by 1 percent to 57,238

Pac-12: Pac-12 crowds declined 3 percent to 50,112 and were down 14 percent since 2007.

ACC: At 49,827 fans per game, the basketball-centric ACC remained last among the Power Five

Missouri's average attendance dropped to 52,000 last year. I mention that because the other 13 schools would have set another attendance record. Minus one solid coach, plus one whopper of a campus turmoil equaled a dismal year and apathy for the Tigers. Maybe it improves next year instead of becoming a trend? We'll see.

(02-04-2017 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 06:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 02:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  But if the SEC and Big 10 make $10 million a year now from their network while the others make $2 or $3 million and the model collapses, they will still make more but not by as much.

If under a new model they make $4 million while the others make $800k, its still 5 times as much, but its a gap of $3.2 million, not $8 million.

Potentially yes

Of course no one has any idea what things will look like 10 years from now. There could be whole new models of revenue we haven't conceived of yet.

Interesting times

Yes, this is essentially the whole argument in a nutshell. The large networks will get the political cover to morph into a new model. It's not in the interest of the stockholders, the public they serve, the political and tax ramifications, or the industry (one upon which our government relies for the dissemination of information) to have a radical and/or abrupt change.

Whatever we move into over the next 10 or so years will be done in some kind of an orderly fashion. I'm sure there will be new players, and different modes of delivery, but ESPN and FOX aren't going to be laid waste in some sweeping and immediate change of technology.

There was an AT&T exec in the 90s who was quoted in a seminar I went to about technology changes: "Change will not come as fast as you expect, but when it comes, it will be far more fundamental than you can imagine."

I completely expect those fundamental changes. I would say we are in the middle of them right now and that they are already impacting most if not all facets of our life. We are in the transition but having been associated with other forms of technological advances, the present systems will be transitioned slowly unless an emergency dictates otherwise. Why? Because if they are to be successful they cannot first be ruinous. Fundamental change has to become the foundation for what is to come and it has to replace the old foundations. That must be done slowly or it can be extremely destructive. Our country has been great about instituting fundamental changes in constructive ways. We've had very few catastrophic changes but the only one we saw coming and did nothing about was the one that led to the Civil War. That rift shattered because nothing was done about the issues for decades after they had been identified. So I expect this one to play out over a couple of decades and that's good. My children will be able to acclimate.
The change in technology that affects broadcasts and potentially sports revenue is just one aspect of a larger panorama of change that is underway. I'm hardly concerned with it. Our institutions will survive broadcast changes for football. It's the other ones coming that will take some getting used to.

Broadcast companies may be greatly impacted. After all, look what happened to AT&T and IBM. There's no guarantee ESPN isn't eclipsed by some new upstart.

(02-05-2017 12:06 AM)p23570 Wrote:  To be honest a Big 12 network without UT is Ideal becasue you still get all the Texas away games and don't have to share the income with them. If the Big 12 can work something out with the PAC it could be a really perfect storm for both conferences to stay competitive with the ACC financially.

I still have a hard time believing the ACC network is going to be that popular but maybe there are other sports which will make up for the limited football fan following of most of the Northern schools in the conference.

Is a school like BC who draws 30k fans for home football games and has most home BB games with 3k - 5k fans really going to carry Massachusetts?

Can Syracuse football and it's horrid TV ratings, lack of national TV games in general , and terrible attendance really support a conference network in the Fall for the entire state of NY?

Can Notre Dame make up for what are obviously schools with limited fan support, especially BC? At least Syracuse has an upside in BB, I've yet to find the upside of BC. On paper they look like an mid level AAC team.

I think we learned with the PAC that unless you have really good fan support conference networks are not nearly as profitable as expected.

My guess is conference networks are a direct correlation to fan support. The ACC and PAC have similar fans support for FB but the ACC has a huge advantage in basketball and has ESPN on thier side which is good but certainly like a pimp who will take thier cut which the PAC does not have to do. I think it will end up being a wash with the ACCN making more money but ESPN taking so much it takes in income down to PAC levels.

SEC: The SEC struggled on the field by its standards. In the stands, the SEC remained the national leader in attendance (77,565 fans per game, down 1 percent from a record-breaking 2015 season).

Big Ten: In the first year with nine Big Ten games, the league averaged 66,162 fans (up less than 1 percent from 2015).

Big 12: Despite missing the College Football Playoff again, the Big 12 increased crowds by 1 percent to 57,238

Pac-12: Pac-12 crowds declined 3 percent to 50,112 and were down 14 percent since 2007.

ACC: At 49,827 fans per game, the basketball-centric ACC remained last among the Power Five

There's no denying that the ACC has small football crowds compared to the rest of the P5. Pro sports in general also dominate the northern markets. ACC basketball will likely be the strength of the ACCN. Football & the Olympic sports will be strong as well. What the ACCN will have that the PACN doesn't is ESPN bundling it with its other channels & a larger populous footprint. No one is expecting it to be as lucrative as the SECN or the B1GN but I can see $8 to $10 million per. I don't see ESPN taking more than 50%.

I for one can't wait for it. With games being sold to FOX RSN's it can be difficult at times finding games & this year there has been a lot of them. It will be nice having all of these types of games in 1 place. On the football side I would expect ND to make 1-2 appearances a season. There's speculation that ND @ Louisville could be the first game on the network. Obviously not all of the games will be of that caliber though. Will shall see of how successful it will or will not be.

(02-04-2017 02:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  They would go for a subscription model now if it was more profitable. Its not. All the conference networks will, at some point, make a lot less.

You can't say it's not simply because they haven' switched to it.

They haven't switched to it because no one knows for sure yet, so no one is going to willingly agree to be the monkey shot into space.

(02-04-2017 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Our institutions will survive broadcast changes for football.

At the very end of the day, the "worst" case scenario is that CFB simply has no telecasts of its games. I can't possibly imagine that world, but even in such a world ... I see CFB continuing to go on. The people in the stadium are the ones who watch, and that's fine.

(02-05-2017 08:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 06:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 02:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Potentially yes

Of course no one has any idea what things will look like 10 years from now. There could be whole new models of revenue we haven't conceived of yet.

Interesting times

Yes, this is essentially the whole argument in a nutshell. The large networks will get the political cover to morph into a new model. It's not in the interest of the stockholders, the public they serve, the political and tax ramifications, or the industry (one upon which our government relies for the dissemination of information) to have a radical and/or abrupt change.

Whatever we move into over the next 10 or so years will be done in some kind of an orderly fashion. I'm sure there will be new players, and different modes of delivery, but ESPN and FOX aren't going to be laid waste in some sweeping and immediate change of technology.

There was an AT&T exec in the 90s who was quoted in a seminar I went to about technology changes: "Change will not come as fast as you expect, but when it comes, it will be far more fundamental than you can imagine."

I completely expect those fundamental changes. I would say we are in the middle of them right now and that they are already impacting most if not all facets of our life. We are in the transition but having been associated with other forms of technological advances, the present systems will be transitioned slowly unless an emergency dictates otherwise. Why? Because if they are to be successful they cannot first be ruinous. Fundamental change has to become the foundation for what is to come and it has to replace the old foundations. That must be done slowly or it can be extremely destructive. Our country has been great about instituting fundamental changes in constructive ways. We've had very few catastrophic changes but the only one we saw coming and did nothing about was the one that led to the Civil War. That rift shattered because nothing was done about the issues for decades after they had been identified. So I expect this one to play out over a couple of decades and that's good. My children will be able to acclimate.
The change in technology that affects broadcasts and potentially sports revenue is just one aspect of a larger panorama of change that is underway. I'm hardly concerned with it. Our institutions will survive broadcast changes for football. It's the other ones coming that will take some getting used to.

Broadcast companies may be greatly impacted. After all, look what happened to AT&T and IBM. There's no guarantee ESPN isn't eclipsed by some new upstart.

Yes, and AT&T adapted. Baby Bells are all doing pretty well. IBM is a fading brand, but has morphed into other things. They stuck around 20 to 30 years past their prime because they were essential to the foundation of the investment market and because their services were essential to the government. Voila!

(02-05-2017 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 12:06 AM)p23570 Wrote:  To be honest a Big 12 network without UT is Ideal becasue you still get all the Texas away games and don't have to share the income with them. If the Big 12 can work something out with the PAC it could be a really perfect storm for both conferences to stay competitive with the ACC financially.

I still have a hard time believing the ACC network is going to be that popular but maybe there are other sports which will make up for the limited football fan following of most of the Northern schools in the conference.

Is a school like BC who draws 30k fans for home football games and has most home BB games with 3k - 5k fans really going to carry Massachusetts?

Can Syracuse football and it's horrid TV ratings, lack of national TV games in general , and terrible attendance really support a conference network in the Fall for the entire state of NY?

Can Notre Dame make up for what are obviously schools with limited fan support, especially BC? At least Syracuse has an upside in BB, I've yet to find the upside of BC. On paper they look like an mid level AAC team.

I think we learned with the PAC that unless you have really good fan support conference networks are not nearly as profitable as expected.

My guess is conference networks are a direct correlation to fan support. The ACC and PAC have similar fans support for FB but the ACC has a huge advantage in basketball and has ESPN on thier side which is good but certainly like a pimp who will take thier cut which the PAC does not have to do. I think it will end up being a wash with the ACCN making more money but ESPN taking so much it takes in income down to PAC levels.

SEC: The SEC struggled on the field by its standards. In the stands, the SEC remained the national leader in attendance (77,565 fans per game, down 1 percent from a record-breaking 2015 season).

Big Ten: In the first year with nine Big Ten games, the league averaged 66,162 fans (up less than 1 percent from 2015).

Big 12: Despite missing the College Football Playoff again, the Big 12 increased crowds by 1 percent to 57,238

Pac-12: Pac-12 crowds declined 3 percent to 50,112 and were down 14 percent since 2007.

ACC: At 49,827 fans per game, the basketball-centric ACC remained last among the Power Five

Missouri's average attendance dropped to 52,000 last year. I mention that because the other 13 schools would have set another attendance record. Minus one solid coach, plus one whopper of a campus turmoil equaled a dismal year and apathy for the Tigers. Maybe it improves next year instead of becoming a trend? We'll see.

I agree on 1 school dragging down the SEC but I think it also demonstrates the conference makes its' money on football support. The B1G has more of a balanced support between FB and BB. Both have extra sports like baseball, WVB, Hockey, etc which add extra value to the conference networks as well.

Then you see a big gap with the ACC and Big 12. The ACC has BB fan support but lacks FB support. The Big 12 has better FB support but worse BB support. Both have some extra sports like baseball but I think the ACC has a slight edge in this category. I'm just not sold that the ACC network is going to pay BC and Wake 10+ million per season.

Then you have the PAC who lacks fan support for FB and for BB. BB is absolutely terrible compared to other p-5 conferences. Thus why thier network is a complete flop and has little likelihood of improving or even getting carried by major providers. People in those time zones just just don't care.

(02-05-2017 11:34 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 12:06 AM)p23570 Wrote:  To be honest a Big 12 network without UT is Ideal becasue you still get all the Texas away games and don't have to share the income with them. If the Big 12 can work something out with the PAC it could be a really perfect storm for both conferences to stay competitive with the ACC financially.

I still have a hard time believing the ACC network is going to be that popular but maybe there are other sports which will make up for the limited football fan following of most of the Northern schools in the conference.

Is a school like BC who draws 30k fans for home football games and has most home BB games with 3k - 5k fans really going to carry Massachusetts?

Can Syracuse football and it's horrid TV ratings, lack of national TV games in general , and terrible attendance really support a conference network in the Fall for the entire state of NY?

Can Notre Dame make up for what are obviously schools with limited fan support, especially BC? At least Syracuse has an upside in BB, I've yet to find the upside of BC. On paper they look like an mid level AAC team.

I think we learned with the PAC that unless you have really good fan support conference networks are not nearly as profitable as expected.

My guess is conference networks are a direct correlation to fan support. The ACC and PAC have similar fans support for FB but the ACC has a huge advantage in basketball and has ESPN on thier side which is good but certainly like a pimp who will take thier cut which the PAC does not have to do. I think it will end up being a wash with the ACCN making more money but ESPN taking so much it takes in income down to PAC levels.

SEC: The SEC struggled on the field by its standards. In the stands, the SEC remained the national leader in attendance (77,565 fans per game, down 1 percent from a record-breaking 2015 season).

Big Ten: In the first year with nine Big Ten games, the league averaged 66,162 fans (up less than 1 percent from 2015).

Big 12: Despite missing the College Football Playoff again, the Big 12 increased crowds by 1 percent to 57,238

Pac-12: Pac-12 crowds declined 3 percent to 50,112 and were down 14 percent since 2007.

ACC: At 49,827 fans per game, the basketball-centric ACC remained last among the Power Five

There's no denying that the ACC has small football crowds compared to the rest of the P5. Pro sports in general also dominate the northern markets. ACC basketball will likely be the strength of the ACCN. Football & the Olympic sports will be strong as well. What the ACCN will have that the PACN doesn't is ESPN bundling it with its other channels & a larger populous footprint. No one is expecting it to be as lucrative as the SECN or the B1GN but I can see $8 to $10 million per. I don't see ESPN taking more than 50%.

I for one can't wait for it. With games being sold to FOX RSN's it can be difficult at times finding games & this year there has been a lot of them. It will be nice having all of these types of games in 1 place. On the football side I would expect ND to make 1-2 appearances a season. There's speculation that ND @ Louisville could be the first game on the network. Obviously not all of the games will be of that caliber though. Will shall see of how successful it will or will not be.

The population of the ACC footprint will not help much IMO. The days of charging everyone in Massachusetts for a conference network they dont' watch simply becasue BC is located in the state are coming to an end. Notre dame helps but they can't carry the entire Northeast United States.

For the ESPN to pay ACC schools 8-10 million ESPN will need to be making 16 - 20 million on each school's t-3 rights. I simply don't see that being realistic to think that Wake, BC, Cuse, Pitt, and Virginia are worth that kind of money. I have no doubt there is value in there with UNC, Duke, FSU, Clemson, VTEch but I just don't see that being enough to feed 15 months with that kind of income as every month it seems that ESPN loses another pile of subscribers and that has to be accounted for at some point.

To put that in perspective I think that the numbers you are throwing around (16-20m)are probably about what OU and KU are worth as far as t-3 content, not the average of all the ACC schools. You have to account for schools like Wake and BC who literally have almost no value because they have no fans willing to pay to watch them play games in person or on TV.

But at the end of the day it's like LHN, as long as ESPN is writing checks for the ACCN who cares.

1) Nobody has even been able to randomly charge anybody any money for anything that they didn't want. I have no idea why people are so insistent that basic laws of economics don't apply to TV. They do. Companies will charge the price where price x people willing to pay that price is maximized. The price that customers are willing to pay is a factor of supply and demand. Companies have bundled assets together, thereby changing the elasticity of each of the assets, and that won't change moving forward. But in that scenario, customers aren't paying for what they don't want. They're just paying more for what they want. However, they're still paying less than or equal to what they think it's worth. Otherwise they would cancel their subscriptions.

2. Unless you define "carrying" very broadly, no team anywhere carries any area. And if you define "carrying" broadly, it loses its meaning and relevance.

3. UVA and Syracuse are probably worth more than half the schools you listed as "valuable." Look at the AD revenues if you don't believe me. Then take out football (because FB is disproportionally T1&2) and I become even more right.

4) The better questions: "are how much would this network drive online subscriptions and non-cable subscriptions, and how much would they slow the transition from cable?"

Also, the other question that literally nobody else is asking is: "what's the covariance of an ACCN's value w/ other ESPN properties?"

(02-05-2017 01:54 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 12:06 AM)p23570 Wrote:  To be honest a Big 12 network without UT is Ideal becasue you still get all the Texas away games and don't have to share the income with them. If the Big 12 can work something out with the PAC it could be a really perfect storm for both conferences to stay competitive with the ACC financially.

I still have a hard time believing the ACC network is going to be that popular but maybe there are other sports which will make up for the limited football fan following of most of the Northern schools in the conference.

Is a school like BC who draws 30k fans for home football games and has most home BB games with 3k - 5k fans really going to carry Massachusetts?

Can Syracuse football and it's horrid TV ratings, lack of national TV games in general , and terrible attendance really support a conference network in the Fall for the entire state of NY?

Can Notre Dame make up for what are obviously schools with limited fan support, especially BC? At least Syracuse has an upside in BB, I've yet to find the upside of BC. On paper they look like an mid level AAC team.

I think we learned with the PAC that unless you have really good fan support conference networks are not nearly as profitable as expected.

My guess is conference networks are a direct correlation to fan support. The ACC and PAC have similar fans support for FB but the ACC has a huge advantage in basketball and has ESPN on thier side which is good but certainly like a pimp who will take thier cut which the PAC does not have to do. I think it will end up being a wash with the ACCN making more money but ESPN taking so much it takes in income down to PAC levels.

SEC: The SEC struggled on the field by its standards. In the stands, the SEC remained the national leader in attendance (77,565 fans per game, down 1 percent from a record-breaking 2015 season).

Big Ten: In the first year with nine Big Ten games, the league averaged 66,162 fans (up less than 1 percent from 2015).

Big 12: Despite missing the College Football Playoff again, the Big 12 increased crowds by 1 percent to 57,238

Pac-12: Pac-12 crowds declined 3 percent to 50,112 and were down 14 percent since 2007.

ACC: At 49,827 fans per game, the basketball-centric ACC remained last among the Power Five

Missouri's average attendance dropped to 52,000 last year. I mention that because the other 13 schools would have set another attendance record. Minus one solid coach, plus one whopper of a campus turmoil equaled a dismal year and apathy for the Tigers. Maybe it improves next year instead of becoming a trend? We'll see.

I agree on 1 school dragging down the SEC but I think it also demonstrates the conference makes its' money on football support. The B1G has more of a balanced support between FB and BB. Both have extra sports like baseball, WVB, Hockey, etc which add extra value to the conference networks as well.

Then you see a big gap with the ACC and Big 12. The ACC has BB fan support but lacks FB support. The Big 12 has better FB support but worse BB support. Both have some extra sports like baseball but I think the ACC has a slight edge in this category. I'm just not sold that the ACC network is going to pay BC and Wake 10+ million per season.

Then you have the PAC who lacks fan support for FB and for BB. BB is absolutely terrible compared to other p-5 conferences. Thus why thier network is a complete flop and has little likelihood of improving or even getting carried by major providers. People in those time zones just just don't care.

There is little statistical difference between the % of revenue claimed for basketball in the Big 10 and that claimed for basketball in the SEC. Both conferences derive around 80% of their total sports broadcast revenue from football. And even with the so called basketball first schools the statistics are little different.

The reason the SEC has higher overall gross revenue (from all sources) than the Big 10 (almost 10 million more last year) is because of ticket prices and attendance for football. Not because of TV contracts. The SEC may surprise you for basketball revenue. I bet there isn't a percent or two difference between the ACC / Big 10 and SEC for hoops revenue. At least baseball is a revenue sport for the SEC, at least for most of our schools.

Note: The definitive data on just basketball comes from the 2013-4 season and was as follows. Of course since these numbers were produced the SEC now televises its on basketball on the SECN the way the Big 10 did the year these numbers were valid, so the gap has closed.

1. PAC 12: 374 million
2. Big 10: 338.9 million
3. SEC: 309.6 million
4. ACC: 291.7 million
5. Big 12: 220.1 million

So the difference in hoops is negligible for everyone but the PAC and the Big 12.

As an outsider, I wish the ACC well on its network but the way things are now, I don't think it will be a success in the short and long term. I could be wrong but current trends are on my side. There's two things against the ACC when the networks debuts in 2019:

-It's already behind the B1G, SEC and Pac-12 in starting a network. It'll be behind the Big Ten Network by at least 10 years. That's an eternity in tv years. Yes, ESPN will be in charge just like with the SEC Network but the ACC is not the SEC no matter how good Clemson and Florida State are. They have great basketball inventory, I'll give them that. The ACC is the only P5 league that lacks complete control of its geographic area except for Virginia and North Carolina, otherwise it's surrounded by the SEC, B1G and pro sports which is tough competition if you want to capture a casual fan in your region to watch your games. The only football game I can think of that can get attention is Clemson vs Florida State and I find it hard to believe it'll be on the ACC Network especially if both are ranked in the top 10 (hello ABC or ESPN). It'll be mostly Pitt vs BC, Wake vs Ga Tech, Louisville vs Syracuse, etc. Good luck with that.

-If the mighty Pac-12 is struggling with its network and we're taking here about a league that has complete control of the entire West Coast, two time zones and killed its geographic competitor, the MWC in the last realignment, what makes people think the ACC will do any better even with the full support of ESPN? The ACC and the Pac-12 have similar fan bases that are dependent on one or two football schools to be relevant and both lack the passionate fans the SEC, B1G and even the Big XII have. I would even say the ACC is in a worse footing because unlike the Pac-12 which is mostly flagship and land grant schools, the ACC is private/semi private/urban school heavy and once again, it's surrounded by two giants, the SEC and B1G and some of its smaller members are in pro sports towns such as Pittsburgh, Boston, Atlanta and Miami. Like I wrote at the beginning, I wish the ACC well and good luck with that network. Two and half years is still a long time and if there's one thing we've seen the last 10 years is how fast the tv landscape is changing.