According to Georgia Tech’s acting AD, Paul Griffin, an ACC network is continuing to get a lot of discussion in ACC administrator circles. During last week’s ACC winter meetings, it was discussed and the league and ESPN agreed to further analyze the possibilities of it. Additionally, the ACC reps estimated that the conference would see a $3.5 million increase in their TV deal due to the Louisville/Notre Dame addition, Orange Bowl tie-in, and the new BCS Playoff. The third component that was brought up was moving the ACC basketball tournament to the New York area.
Read full story
HERE
A $3.5 million increase would be awesome*, but the article poses some questions.
1. The ACC currently makes $17.14+ million/school in TV. The article says $16.9. What gives?
2. How would the Orange Bowl affect TV ratings. That is sold seperately and it has already been sold.
*Assuming that we don't lengthen our current contract.
Yep, some fuzzy math and facts there. I still feel like the ACC network will be created since the plan would be different from what is already out there.
(02-11-2013 07:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]A $3.5 million increase would be awesome*, but the article poses some questions.
1. The ACC currently makes $17.14+ million/school in TV. The article says $16.9. What gives?
2. How would the Orange Bowl affect TV ratings. Those are sold seperately and they have already been sold.
*Assuming that we don't lengthen our current contract.
It also isn't incredibly clear to me how the network will tangibly help. Assuming that they don't buy back conference-controlled content, then unless I am mistaken, the network will either air programs that are already aired by individual schools (i.e. coach's shows), or it will air content that is currently not being shown. If the network airs content that is already being aired by individual schools, then it seems like it is taking money from the schools airing the content and giving it to the conference to equitably distribute. That would be great for the smaller schools who would see all of the gain, but wouldn't lose much content. However, it would be bad for the big schools who would lose a disproportionally large amount of content, but get an equal share.
If conference network does buy back conference-controlled content, then, in an efficient market, ESPN should charge them the value of the content and they shouldn't make any money. Admittedly the market isn't perfectly efficient, but that goes both ways. The odds of ESPN overcharging them are just as good as the odds of ESPN undercharging them, so profiting from that method is far from certain, and the EV is still $0.
If the new network would show currently unaired content, then I am curious as to why it isn't being aired. Either the market is lagging, which is possibly, or the content isn't worth anything. If the market is inefficient (lagging) then it is a good move and we should make money. If the content isn't valuable, then we should just break even, or even lose money.
In the end, I can see increasing conference payouts, or even increasing revenue, but any increases in conference payouts should be balanced by decreases in individual school media deals, and any general increases in revenue would be balanced out by current costs and the concept of the time value of money. Arguably we would increase our payout by taking on more risk (i.e. ownership), but the increase in payouts are balanced out by the increase in risk. In the end, the only clear inherent direct financial advantage of an ACC network that I see is the ability to decrease per school fixed costs by sharing certain fixed expenses, like skilled negotiators. However, that benefit is de mininis, and very few people have accused Swofford of being a skilled TV negotiator.
That said, a conference network should be good for communications colleges of conference universities, because I would imagine that some of the content would be student-produced, which is good industry experience. Since that is something that is important to Syracuse, even if it is cost-neutral, I am for it.
(02-11-2013 07:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]A $3.5 million increase would be awesome*, but the article poses some questions.
1. The ACC currently makes $17.14+ million/school in TV. The article says $16.9. What gives?
2. How would the Orange Bowl affect TV ratings. That is sold seperately and it has already been sold.
*Assuming that we don't lengthen our current contract.
conference probably takes a small amounbt to cover costs
My source...told me over the weekend that they are looking at every other year at MSG.
(02-11-2013 07:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]It also isn't incredibly clear to me how the network will tangibly help. Assuming that they don't buy back conference-controlled content, then unless I am mistaken, the network will either air programs that are already aired by individual schools (i.e. coach's shows), or it will air content that is currently not being shown. If the network airs content that is already being aired by individual schools, then it seems like it is taking money from the schools airing the content and giving it to the conference to equitably distribute. That would be great for the smaller schools who would see all of the gain, but wouldn't lose much content. However, it would be bad for the big schools who would lose a disproportionally large amount of content, but get an equal share.
If conference network does buy back conference-controlled content, then, in an efficient market, ESPN should charge them the value of the content and they shouldn't make any money. Admittedly the market isn't perfectly efficient, but that goes both ways. The odds of ESPN overcharging them are just as good as the odds of ESPN undercharging them, so profiting from that method is far from certain, and the EV is still $0.
If the new network would show currently unaired content, then I am curious as to why it isn't being aired. Either the market is lagging, which is possibly, or the content isn't worth anything. If the market is inefficient (lagging) then it is a good move and we should make money. If the content isn't valuable, then we should just break even, or even lose money.
I'm pretty sure I've said something like this several times on here. It's interesting to see someone who is a much bigger ACC fan than myself also question the legitimacy of an ACC Network.
==========================
Also, if there is a $3.5M increase from UL/ND, the Orange AND the Playoff, how large of a revenue increase is the ACC actually going to see from UL/ND? It was initially $1-1.5M for ND. Then it was $2-3M (I think) recently for ND/UL. Now it is $3.5M for ND/UL, Orange AND Playoff?
Why even include the Orange and Playoff money when we all know it's likely less than at least 2 of the other 4 major conferences? All I want to know is how much ND and UL directly bring to the ACC, up from the ~$17M it is currently.
Any other news from the meetings?
(02-11-2013 08:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]My source...told me over the weekend that they are looking at every other year at MSG.
(02-11-2013 08:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]My source...told me over the weekend that they are looking at every other year at MSG.
Makes sense to me. Do a one for one rotation between MSG and Greensboro. Gives the best balance between North and South, exposure vs tradition.
I'm fine with rotating to MSG. I'm not at all fine with keeping it there even 50% of the time.
(02-11-2013 08:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]My source...told me over the weekend that they are looking at every other year at MSG.
I hope that comes to fruition. Would the other year be in the Greensboro Coliseum? If so the ACC basketball tournament would be rotating between two of the most tradition rich arenas in the country. Seems pretty cool to me.
Would the C7 take MSG on a biyearly basis, too? They could use United Center in Chicago every other year.
The ACCs contract is back loaded. The payment goes up with time but averages out to a 17.4 mill yearly payout. So that 3.5 only increases in value with each passing year.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
(02-11-2013 09:48 PM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]The ACCs contract is back loaded. The payment goes up with time but averages out to a 17.4 mill yearly payout. So that 3.5 only increases in value with each passing year.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Every conference contract is backloaded. For every conference, any report is providing an average over the life of the contract.
(02-11-2013 09:04 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2013 08:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]My source...told me over the weekend that they are looking at every other year at MSG.
I hope that comes to fruition. Would the other year be in the Greensboro Coliseum? If so the ACC basketball tournament would be rotating between two of the most tradition rich arenas in the country. Seems pretty cool to me.
Would the C7 take MSG on a biyearly basis, too? They could use United Center in Chicago every other year.
Then it would be rotating between MSG and the Palestra, maybe Boston Garden.
It should be every year at MSG, and if they go there 50% of the time, it is likely just a matter of time before it will be there 100% of the time, and the only schools that will be complaining are UNC and Duke.
(02-11-2013 08:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]I'm fine with rotating to MSG. I'm not at all fine with keeping it there even 50% of the time.
It might happen though...the publicity is the big thing. I think it should just rotate between NC and MSG.
I'm biased obviously but the best night of hoops is Friday night semis at MSG. Throw in teams like UNC/Duke/Cuse/ND/UL/Pitt/NCSt....it'll be off the charts.
I used to think having your final on Sunday was big time...but having it on ESPN on Saturday night for a 9pm tip is huge...as it is played at bars throughout the country.
(02-11-2013 09:04 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2013 08:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]My source...told me over the weekend that they are looking at every other year at MSG.
I hope that comes to fruition. Would the other year be in the Greensboro Coliseum? If so the ACC basketball tournament would be rotating between two of the most tradition rich arenas in the country. Seems pretty cool to me.
Would the C7 take MSG on a biyearly basis, too? They could use United Center in Chicago every other year.
If is goes to 50%...I'm sure the C7, B1G and nnnnnnBE would all want in.
Also, the ACC/MSG are still exploring a 50% contract...it might not happen...but he did say every other year. Not 2 on/2 off.
To VilleCard: Nothing much else to report other than the news article indicated. It sounds like the schools are all committed to making this conference work.
(02-11-2013 10:01 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2013 09:48 PM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]The ACCs contract is back loaded. The payment goes up with time but averages out to a 17.4 mill yearly payout. So that 3.5 only increases in value with each passing year.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Every conference contract is backloaded. For every conference, any report is providing an average over the life of the contract.
The quote from the article:
"2. Even without a network,
the ACC is estimating an additional $3.5 million in annual revenues per school in 2014-15 due to a number of factors – the addition of Notre Dame and Louisville, a renegotiated TV contract, the BCS playoff and a new deal with the Orange Bowl that will pair the league champion against a team from the SEC or Big Ten or Notre Dame."
So would that mean $16.9 million + $3.5 million starting in 2014/2015? If so, that be huge!
(02-11-2013 08:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]My source...told me over the weekend that they are looking at every other year at MSG.
Do they think MSG would go for that?
(02-12-2013 08:53 AM)7fielder Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2013 08:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote: [ -> ]My source...told me over the weekend that they are looking at every other year at MSG.
Do they think MSG would go for that?
Yes
Ok this is words from our inside guy...he said FrankThe Tank's column was spot on.
His thoughts below:
I would say that three things are holding further discussion up:
1. Univ of Maryland suit
2. Big East contract that is sooooooooo low it hurts--0r laughable--to discuss but implications are indeed serious
--does ESPN which still have first option come in and trump NBC...if not, possibly more $$$ for ACC
3. Catholic 7 and what it actually means to not only the new BE but also the ACC....
I would say that the link below should open everyone's eyes to the impact and strength of media...and in this case FOX and its going after the Catholic 7 and its bid for the Catholic 7--they are going to make nearly as much as the new BE...but the story is vetted by source and Frankthetank is right on
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2...-t...n-bristol/
The implication for ACC is the final contract....both for the new BE (and don't forget they turned down nearly $120 million a year from ESPN to receive less than $25 million a year and what $$$ the Catholic 7 finally get)...but more importantly when they leave. (I will update during Wednesday game). Additionally, Swofford may give an interview this week.....look more to tenor of words than to actual points....and think POSITIVE(being as low key as I can get--pass the Jack and Coke)...and damn it, 'Cuse find a 12th game so schedule can be released.
(02-11-2013 08:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (02-11-2013 07:56 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]It also isn't incredibly clear to me how the network will tangibly help. Assuming that they don't buy back conference-controlled content, then unless I am mistaken, the network will either air programs that are already aired by individual schools (i.e. coach's shows), or it will air content that is currently not being shown. If the network airs content that is already being aired by individual schools, then it seems like it is taking money from the schools airing the content and giving it to the conference to equitably distribute. That would be great for the smaller schools who would see all of the gain, but wouldn't lose much content. However, it would be bad for the big schools who would lose a disproportionally large amount of content, but get an equal share.
If conference network does buy back conference-controlled content, then, in an efficient market, ESPN should charge them the value of the content and they shouldn't make any money. Admittedly the market isn't perfectly efficient, but that goes both ways. The odds of ESPN overcharging them are just as good as the odds of ESPN undercharging them, so profiting from that method is far from certain, and the EV is still $0.
If the new network would show currently unaired content, then I am curious as to why it isn't being aired. Either the market is lagging, which is possibly, or the content isn't worth anything. If the market is inefficient (lagging) then it is a good move and we should make money. If the content isn't valuable, then we should just break even, or even lose money.
I'm pretty sure I've said something like this several times on here. It's interesting to see someone who is a much bigger ACC fan than myself also question the legitimacy of an ACC Network.
That may be exactly what they would do. ESPN is currently reselling/sublicensing content to FOX Sports Net and Raycom. If the conference itself, perhaps in partnership with Raycom or FOX, purchased a similar package as an alternative to the existing sublicenses, such package could be used together with any Tier 3 games as the basic programming for an ACC Network. As far as the EV being 0, the idea would be that combining this content onto a network would allow better monetization of the content's value through subscription fees than the current distribution, which relies primarily on advertising revenue.
(02-11-2013 08:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]Also, if there is a $3.5M increase from UL/ND, the Orange AND the Playoff, how large of a revenue increase is the ACC actually going to see from UL/ND? It was initially $1-1.5M for ND. Then it was $2-3M (I think) recently for ND/UL. Now it is $3.5M for ND/UL, Orange AND Playoff?
Why even include the Orange and Playoff money when we all know it's likely less than at least 2 of the other 4 major conferences? All I want to know is how much ND and UL directly bring to the ACC, up from the ~$17M it is currently.
I fear that the "3.5 million" is just the spread between the per school payout for the Orange Bowl and new BCS and the payout for the old BCS. I hope I'm wrong.