(10-12-2017 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

This is true. Also, the most important thing with TV contract amounts that people MUST remember is that they actually are NOT valued in a proportional manner with respect to ratings.

For example, a football game with a 3.0 rating is NOT worth only 2 times more than another football game with a 1.5 rating. Instead, that 3.0 rating is actually worth 4 or 5 times as much as a game with a 1.5 rating. Why? Because of the VORP concept that you noted, the fact that there's scarcity of time (e.g. there are only a finite number of time slots available each Saturday, so the premium is much greater in order to maximize the value of each such time slot), and the fact that advertisers pay exponentially more for larger audiences because they're also scarce (e.g. there are lots and lots of programs across many different cable channels that can deliver a 1.5 ratings on a Saturday afternoon, but there are very few programs that can deliver a 3.0 rating).

Ultimately, we're not comparing widgets at a store where there are an infinite number of consumers that can buy such widgets at any time in many different ways. Instead, the market for college football is almost entirely based on the 3 to 4 timeslots that are available on ESPN and other sports networks for 13 Saturdays during the fall *specifically*. (Weeknight games are more about the leverage ESPN has over you to move games off of Saturday as opposed to how they value you financially.) ESPN isn't saying, "Well, we're fine with paying a G5 league 50%-75% of the rights fees of a P5 league in exchange for 50%-75% of the viewership in a timeslot." Instead, they look at the opportunity cost of giving up such a valuable timeslot to a lower rated program and apply a further discount (along with looking at the VORP and other factors).

The upshot is that getting 75% of the viewers doesn't (and will never) equate to 75% of the rights fees in the marketplace. Instead, it's more like 25%-30% of the rights fees when you take into account the advertiser premiums and opportunity cost noted above... and that's basically right in line with what the AAC is receiving today.

Plus, just look at ESPN's actions this year. Has the coverage of the G5 leagues on ESPN really changed at all after losing half of the Big Ten games? Honestly, what I mostly see is that Big Ten games that used to be on ESPNU are all gone, while the coverage on the mothership ABC/ESPN platforms (which are where the money is really made for conferences) haven't changed at all.

Remember that ESPN receives about 75% of its revenue via carriage fees, not ad dollars. FS1 probably closer to 40% carriage fee dollars.

If a person is an Alabama fan, why would they continue with their local cable company, or satellite if ESPN were not available, the provider has to pay up to keep the Bama fan subscribed?

Having Alabama helps permit ESPN to charge a high carriage fee and presumably in the future, a high subscription fee.

If they lose Alabama then ESPN is no longer worth the money. The Bama fan's concern is a subscription that will include Bama.

Even if Tulsa draws 50% of the audience of Alabama, that does not mean that the number of people who will change their television subscription based on Tulsa's TV distribution changing is 50% of Alabama's.

Accurately judging what AAC's value is to the carriage/subscription model is more complicated than just viewership.

(10-12-2017 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

This is true. Also, the most important thing with TV contract amounts that people MUST remember is that they actually are NOT valued in a proportional manner with respect to ratings.

For example, a football game with a 3.0 rating is NOT worth only 2 times more than another football game with a 1.5 rating. Instead, that 3.0 rating is actually worth 4 or 5 times as much as a game with a 1.5 rating. Why? Because of the VORP concept that you noted, the fact that there's scarcity of time (e.g. there are only a finite number of time slots available each Saturday, so the premium is much greater in order to maximize the value of each such time slot), and the fact that advertisers pay exponentially more for larger audiences because they're also scarce (e.g. there are lots and lots of programs across many different cable channels that can deliver a 1.5 ratings on a Saturday afternoon, but there are very few programs that can deliver a 3.0 rating).

Ultimately, we're not comparing widgets at a store where there are an infinite number of consumers that can buy such widgets at any time in many different ways. Instead, the market for college football is almost entirely based on the 3 to 4 timeslots that are available on ESPN and other sports networks for 13 Saturdays during the fall *specifically*. (Weeknight games are more about the leverage ESPN has over you to move games off of Saturday as opposed to how they value you financially.) ESPN isn't saying, "Well, we're fine with paying a G5 league 50%-75% of the rights fees of a P5 league in exchange for 50%-75% of the viewership in a timeslot." Instead, they look at the opportunity cost of giving up such a valuable timeslot to a lower rated program and apply a further discount (along with looking at the VORP and other factors).

The upshot is that getting 75% of the viewers doesn't (and will never) equate to 75% of the rights fees in the marketplace. Instead, it's more like 25%-30% of the rights fees when you take into account the advertiser premiums and opportunity cost noted above... and that's basically right in line with what the AAC is receiving today.

Plus, just look at ESPN's actions this year. Has the coverage of the G5 leagues on ESPN really changed at all after losing half of the Big Ten games? Honestly, what I mostly see is that Big Ten games that used to be on ESPNU are all gone, while the coverage on the mothership ABC/ESPN platforms (which are where the money is really made for conferences) haven't changed at all.

Remember that ESPN receives about 75% of its revenue via carriage fees, not ad dollars. FS1 probably closer to 40% carriage fee dollars.

If a person is an Alabama fan, why would they continue with their local cable company, or satellite if ESPN were not available, the provider has to pay up to keep the Bama fan subscribed?

Having Alabama helps permit ESPN to charge a high carriage fee and presumably in the future, a high subscription fee.

If they lose Alabama then ESPN is no longer worth the money. The Bama fan's concern is a subscription that will include Bama.

Even if Tulsa draws 50% of the audience of Alabama, that does not mean that the number of people who will change their television subscription based on Tulsa's TV distribution changing is 50% of Alabama's.

Accurately judging what AAC's value is to the carriage/subscription model is more complicated than just viewership.

Yes, this is another fair point. Losing the SEC or Big Ten (or the NFL, NBA or MLB) could all impact ESPN's negotiating power for carriage fees. ESPN is willing to pay a lot for those properties because (at as of now) they're justified by how important they are for the overall carriage fee structure. That value proposition isn't as clear for the G5 conferences.

We've got a former TV exec running the conference. He gambled on exposure over cash last time around, expecting it to pay dividends now. Hopefully the ratings we've delivered will be in line with what Aresco was hoping for. He'll know what to ask for when he gets to the table.

(10-12-2017 05:09 PM)Chappy Wrote:  We've got a former TV exec running the conference. He gambled on exposure over cash last time around, expecting it to pay dividends now. Hopefully the ratings we've delivered will be in line with what Aresco was hoping for. He'll know what to ask for when he gets to the table.

Sun Belt, MWC, and AAC all expire June 30, 2020.
Sun Belt will be no worse off.
Craig Thompson seems to be signaling MWC thinks they are in for no growth or a haircut.
AAC is the mystery date in my opinion. The numbers are certainly good, the problem is will anyone pay more in the current uncertain TV market.

(10-12-2017 05:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:09 PM)Chappy Wrote:  We've got a former TV exec running the conference. He gambled on exposure over cash last time around, expecting it to pay dividends now. Hopefully the ratings we've delivered will be in line with what Aresco was hoping for. He'll know what to ask for when he gets to the table.

Sun Belt, MWC, and AAC all expire June 30, 2020.
Sun Belt will be no worse off.
Craig Thompson seems to be signaling MWC thinks they are in for no growth or a haircut.
AAC is the mystery date in my opinion. The numbers are certainly good, the problem is will anyone pay more in the current uncertain TV market.

I think I read where the Thompson said the Mountain West has already been offered an extension at current rates. So, I dont think a haircut is in the cards for the MW. I think their issue is those late night slots are bad for their attendance and hamper in stadium revenue. The problem is late night games are where they have something to sell thats relatively scarce (and may become more so because the Pac12 is grumbling about late games as well). The flip side of that equation is the value of those late night games has a glass ceiling because 80% of the potential national audience is off the table before the first half is over. Hard to rationalize paying a premium price for something that will fight for a share of a national audience that's reduced by about 80%.

I think the MW thinks the media income is so small, they might could make it up (or even exceed the current revenue) via their digital network along with increased "in stadium" revenue from games played at the optimum time for each school's local fans.

(10-12-2017 01:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:56 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You can't just look at gross numbers. The key is "VORP" - value over replacement programming (copied from the baseball stat value over replacement player"). The P12 and B12 football numbers are for 22 and 23 games respectively. How many AAC games contributed to its total? Assume that ESPN's option is showing a MAC or CUSA game, or another edition of SportsCenter. How many more viewers does the AAC game generate than this essentially free alternative? I have no idea what the answers are to these questions, and it may very well be that the AAC is tremendously undervalued. However, this is the kind of analysis that you'd have to perform to determine the answer.

This is true. Also, the most important thing with TV contract amounts that people MUST remember is that they actually are NOT valued in a proportional manner with respect to ratings.

For example, a football game with a 3.0 rating is NOT worth only 2 times more than another football game with a 1.5 rating. Instead, that 3.0 rating is actually worth 4 or 5 times as much as a game with a 1.5 rating. Why? Because of the VORP concept that you noted, the fact that there's scarcity of time (e.g. there are only a finite number of time slots available each Saturday, so the premium is much greater in order to maximize the value of each such time slot), and the fact that advertisers pay exponentially more for larger audiences because they're also scarce (e.g. there are lots and lots of programs across many different cable channels that can deliver a 1.5 ratings on a Saturday afternoon, but there are very few programs that can deliver a 3.0 rating).

Ultimately, we're not comparing widgets at a store where there are an infinite number of consumers that can buy such widgets at any time in many different ways. Instead, the market for college football is almost entirely based on the 3 to 4 timeslots that are available on ESPN and other sports networks for 13 Saturdays during the fall *specifically*. (Weeknight games are more about the leverage ESPN has over you to move games off of Saturday as opposed to how they value you financially.) ESPN isn't saying, "Well, we're fine with paying a G5 league 50%-75% of the rights fees of a P5 league in exchange for 50%-75% of the viewership in a timeslot." Instead, they look at the opportunity cost of giving up such a valuable timeslot to a lower rated program and apply a further discount (along with looking at the VORP and other factors).

The upshot is that getting 75% of the viewers doesn't (and will never) equate to 75% of the rights fees in the marketplace. Instead, it's more like 25%-30% of the rights fees when you take into account the advertiser premiums and opportunity cost noted above... and that's basically right in line with what the AAC is receiving today.

Plus, just look at ESPN's actions this year. Has the coverage of the G5 leagues on ESPN really changed at all after losing half of the Big Ten games? Honestly, what I mostly see is that Big Ten games that used to be on ESPNU are all gone, while the coverage on the mothership ABC/ESPN platforms (which are where the money is really made for conferences) haven't changed at all.

Remember that ESPN receives about 75% of its revenue via carriage fees, not ad dollars. FS1 probably closer to 40% carriage fee dollars.

If a person is an Alabama fan, why would they continue with their local cable company, or satellite if ESPN were not available, the provider has to pay up to keep the Bama fan subscribed?

Having Alabama helps permit ESPN to charge a high carriage fee and presumably in the future, a high subscription fee.

If they lose Alabama then ESPN is no longer worth the money. The Bama fan's concern is a subscription that will include Bama.

Even if Tulsa draws 50% of the audience of Alabama, that does not mean that the number of people who will change their television subscription based on Tulsa's TV distribution changing is 50% of Alabama's.

Accurately judging what AAC's value is to the carriage/subscription model is more complicated than just viewership.

Yes, this is another fair point. Losing the SEC or Big Ten (or the NFL, NBA or MLB) could all impact ESPN's negotiating power for carriage fees. ESPN is willing to pay a lot for those properties because (at as of now) they're justified by how important they are for the overall carriage fee structure. That value proposition isn't as clear for the G5 conferences.

Of course, carriage revenue is the revenue that is declining---and frankly, for G5 conferences not on ESPN---is there any reason to pay for all those ESPN channels if the league you follow most isnt there. Truth is, every time ESPN loses a sports rights property, the hard core follower of that sport has little reason to stay tethered to ESPN. ESPN got big because they have everything. They became the "Mothership" because they were almost a sports monopoly. The G5ers "subsidize" the SEC. The soccer fans "subsidize" the NBA. When ESPN isnt offering "everything"---they start losing folks. lol....In reality, ESPN is really a "sports bundle" wrapped inside of a cable bundle.

I will say it again as I did before. ESPN can say the it is the timeslot and the AAC can say it is the teams. If there are no other bidders, ESPN holds the upper hand in negotiations. Will CBS, FOX or NBC bid for the AAC? If not, nothing encourages ESPN to go above their bid. AAC could bid out to other networks, do they get the money they hope for? Personally, I don't think so. I think it would be incremental over what ESPN offers. Disney would love to keep the AAC at low cost but they may be willing to work with BYU, MAC, CUSA, SB and MW to get their big games to replace the AAC prime games. Remember the ACC games that are coming to the AAC Network are not coming from current ESPN games but RSN & Raycom.

(10-12-2017 08:35 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I will say it again as I did before. ESPN can say the it is the timeslot and the AAC can say it is the teams. If there are no other bidders, ESPN holds the upper hand in negotiations. Will CBS, FOX or NBC bid for the AAC? If not, nothing encourages ESPN to go above their bid. AAC could bid out to other networks, do they get the money they hope for? Personally, I don't think so. I think it would be incremental over what ESPN offers. Disney would love to keep the AAC at low cost but they may be willing to work with BYU, MAC, CUSA, SB and MW to get their big games to replace the AAC prime games. Remember the ACC games that are coming to the AAC Network are not coming from current ESPN games but RSN & Raycom.

That works as long as nobody else bids. That might be the case if the AAC was getting CUSA/Sunbelt ratings. Unfortunately for ESPN, there is a track record out there now. It's not like nobody else has that information. If you have no FBS football and 75% of P5 ratings can be purchased for less than half the price of P5 games---then other networks will bid. It's a no lose for them. If they win the bidding, they get a good property at a bargain price. If they lose, that make ESPN spend dollars that will not available for the next property that comes up for bidding.

Before CUSA's deal was announced I said that it boiled down to Fox. If Fox was going to follow the ESPN model by adding more football content to FS2 and do more online that CUSA would come in around the current number and if Fox wasn't going to try to make FS2 mainstream relevant they would get a haircut.

My thinking is AAC's situation probably depends on CBS. My gut on AAC is that ESPN will offer a modest raise. If AAC is going to get better money, CBS is going to be the key. CBS is already sublicensing AAC content so they have interest. CBSSN to grow needs more attractive content and they aren't in shape to bid P5 content without a significant cash infusion from the parent. CBS is also betting on direct to consumer and right now sports isn't a part of that equation but come negotiation time that may well change.

I think if AAC gets a significant bump it will be because CBS comes to play.

(10-12-2017 11:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Before CUSA's deal was announced I said that it boiled down to Fox. If Fox was going to follow the ESPN model by adding more football content to FS2 and do more online that CUSA would come in around the current number and if Fox wasn't going to try to make FS2 mainstream relevant they would get a haircut.

My thinking is AAC's situation probably depends on CBS. My gut on AAC is that ESPN will offer a modest raise. If AAC is going to get better money, CBS is going to be the key. CBS is already sublicensing AAC content so they have interest. CBSSN to grow needs more attractive content and they aren't in shape to bid P5 content without a significant cash infusion from the parent. CBS is also betting on direct to consumer and right now sports isn't a part of that equation but come negotiation time that may well change.

I think if AAC gets a significant bump it will be because CBS comes to play.

I would throw NBC into that pot as well. There is a lot of talk regarding the streamers like Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook---and maybe Im wrong, but I just dont see them playing a major role in the bidding. I dont think there is any way for the AAC to get to 6-8 million a team if ESPN is the only rights holder---ESPN doesnt need all the inventory and wont spend max dollars on it. The AAC needs to split their rights package in order to maximize its value. My feeling is ESPN probably would never pay 80-100 million for the AAC. But they might pay 60 million for the 25-30 game inventory they need....and CBS and NBC might pay 10 to 15 each for 10-12 games for each network. They might rotate picks---or maybe ESPN gets #1 and CBS and NBC rotate #2 pick every other week so their packages arent just the dregs.

If you look at NBC Saturdays, they still have lots of late afternoon and evening slots open on NBC-Sports and NBC broadcast. They are getting killed with their afternoon programming. Often, they have on ice skating, big truck races, and car auctions----and the ratings are not pretty. They bid back in 2013 when the AAC was a complete unknown. Now that they know what they are getting, I think they will make another run and put a stronger offer on the table.

(10-12-2017 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  2.5 years is not a proven trend. Go back to 2014 and it looked like this:
AAC 10 31
USA 20 26
MWC 20 28
MAC 10 34
SUN BELT 5 32

One bad year in five does not prove anything either.

The American has had at least three teams make appearances in the Top 25 poll in 2013, 2015, 2016 and we currently have three teams in the poll in 2017.

Since 2013, no G4 conference has ever had three different teams get ranked in the same season.

(10-13-2017 05:18 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  2.5 years is not a proven trend. Go back to 2014 and it looked like this:
AAC 10 31
USA 20 26
MWC 20 28
MAC 10 34
SUN BELT 5 32

One bad year in five does not prove anything either.

The American has had at least three teams make appearances in the Top 25 poll in 2013, 2015, 2016 and we currently have three teams in the poll in 2017.

Since 2013, no G4 conference has ever had three different teams get ranked in the same season.

TREND....

(10-13-2017 01:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Before CUSA's deal was announced I said that it boiled down to Fox. If Fox was going to follow the ESPN model by adding more football content to FS2 and do more online that CUSA would come in around the current number and if Fox wasn't going to try to make FS2 mainstream relevant they would get a haircut.

My thinking is AAC's situation probably depends on CBS. My gut on AAC is that ESPN will offer a modest raise. If AAC is going to get better money, CBS is going to be the key. CBS is already sublicensing AAC content so they have interest. CBSSN to grow needs more attractive content and they aren't in shape to bid P5 content without a significant cash infusion from the parent. CBS is also betting on direct to consumer and right now sports isn't a part of that equation but come negotiation time that may well change.

I think if AAC gets a significant bump it will be because CBS comes to play.

I would throw NBC into that pot as well. There is a lot of talk regarding the streamers like Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook---and maybe Im wrong, but I just dont see them playing a major role in the bidding. I dont think there is any way for the AAC to get to 6-8 million a team if ESPN is the only rights holder---ESPN doesnt need all the inventory and wont spend max dollars on it. The AAC needs to split their rights package in order to maximize its value. My feeling is ESPN probably would never pay 80-100 million for the AAC. But they might pay 60 million for the 25-30 game inventory they need....and CBS and NBC might pay 10 to 15 each for 10-12 games for each network. They might rotate picks---or maybe ESPN gets #1 and CBS and NBC rotate #2 pick every other week so their packages arent just the dregs.

If you look at NBC Saturdays, they still have lots of late afternoon and evening slots open on NBC-Sports and NBC broadcast. They are getting killed with their afternoon programming. Often, they have on ice skating, big truck races, and car auctions----and the ratings are not pretty. They bid back in 2013 when the AAC was a complete unknown. Now that they know what they are getting, I think they will make another run and put a stronger offer on the table.

I can't even remember the last time I have watched something on NBC.

(10-13-2017 08:41 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 01:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 11:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Before CUSA's deal was announced I said that it boiled down to Fox. If Fox was going to follow the ESPN model by adding more football content to FS2 and do more online that CUSA would come in around the current number and if Fox wasn't going to try to make FS2 mainstream relevant they would get a haircut.

My thinking is AAC's situation probably depends on CBS. My gut on AAC is that ESPN will offer a modest raise. If AAC is going to get better money, CBS is going to be the key. CBS is already sublicensing AAC content so they have interest. CBSSN to grow needs more attractive content and they aren't in shape to bid P5 content without a significant cash infusion from the parent. CBS is also betting on direct to consumer and right now sports isn't a part of that equation but come negotiation time that may well change.

I think if AAC gets a significant bump it will be because CBS comes to play.

I would throw NBC into that pot as well. There is a lot of talk regarding the streamers like Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook---and maybe Im wrong, but I just dont see them playing a major role in the bidding. I dont think there is any way for the AAC to get to 6-8 million a team if ESPN is the only rights holder---ESPN doesnt need all the inventory and wont spend max dollars on it. The AAC needs to split their rights package in order to maximize its value. My feeling is ESPN probably would never pay 80-100 million for the AAC. But they might pay 60 million for the 25-30 game inventory they need....and CBS and NBC might pay 10 to 15 each for 10-12 games for each network. They might rotate picks---or maybe ESPN gets #1 and CBS and NBC rotate #2 pick every other week so their packages arent just the dregs.

If you look at NBC Saturdays, they still have lots of late afternoon and evening slots open on NBC-Sports and NBC broadcast. They are getting killed with their afternoon programming. Often, they have on ice skating, big truck races, and car auctions----and the ratings are not pretty. They bid back in 2013 when the AAC was a complete unknown. Now that they know what they are getting, I think they will make another run and put a stronger offer on the table.

I can't even remember the last time I have watched something on NBC.

In my view, NBC is a far more likely candidate than CBS to make a legit offer. The strategy of CBSSN is to be a bargain hunter. CBSSN has relied heavily on sublicensing from ESPN and Fox, including football and basketball games from the AAC, Big East and MAC. Their only direct deals are with Army, Navy, the MWC and CUSA. NBCSN has shown a willingness to go after much higher profile programming such as the NHL and EPL.

(10-13-2017 05:18 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  2.5 years is not a proven trend. Go back to 2014 and it looked like this:
AAC 10 31
USA 20 26
MWC 20 28
MAC 10 34
SUN BELT 5 32

One bad year in five does not prove anything either.

The American has had at least three teams make appearances in the Top 25 poll in 2013, 2015, 2016 and we currently have three teams in the poll in 2017.

Since 2013, no G4 conference has ever had three different teams get ranked in the same season.

Horrendous would be a better description. 2 good years in a row doesn't prove anything either. The MWC having an identical 10-31 ooc in 2015 didn't prove they were way below the AAC and even below the MAC and CUSA.

The jury is still out on how much separation there is among the G5. The AAC in its current form only dates to that horrendous 2014 season.

Houston president Renu Khator serves as the Chair of the American Conference Board of Directors.

Today, she tweeted she had a "productive meeting this morning with" John Skipper, president of ESPN.

**********

(10-13-2017 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  The jury is still out on how much separation there is among the G5. The AAC in its current form only dates to that horrendous 2014 season.

Incorrect. The AAC in its current form dates to 2015 when Navy joined.

People need to keep in mind that our “TV Expert Commissioner” took an unnamed and unstable product to the networks. Consequently, we were purchased for a “rock bottom” price. Therefore, the price will likely go up for our product; especially with the anticipation of certain ACC games going to the ACCN—which creates a need for our inventory….

(10-13-2017 11:11 AM)Underdog Wrote:  People need to keep in mind that our “TV Expert Commissioner” took an unnamed and unstable product to the networks. Consequently, we were purchased for a “rock bottom” price. Therefore, the price will likely go up for our product; especially with the anticipation of certain ACC games going to the ACCN—which creates a need for our inventory….

As noted in another post above, most of the inventory for the ACCN is expected to come from the Raycom and RSN packages. There probably will be some additional need beyond that, but there will not be a large number of open slots on ESPN networks created by the ACCN launch.

(10-13-2017 11:27 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 11:11 AM)Underdog Wrote:  People need to keep in mind that our “TV Expert Commissioner” took an unnamed and unstable product to the networks. Consequently, we were purchased for a “rock bottom” price. Therefore, the price will likely go up for our product; especially with the anticipation of certain ACC games going to the ACCN—which creates a need for our inventory….

As noted in another post above, most of the inventory for the ACCN is expected to come from the Raycom and RSN packages. There probably will be some additional need beyond that, but there will not be a large number of open slots on ESPN networks created by the ACCN launch.

Thanks for “pointing” this out to me because I didn’t read the entire thread….