http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/f...t=Football
23 hoops and 10 football
Quote:MSG Networks and FOX Sports Media Group are poised to announce an agreement that will televise both ACC and Big East basketball games, and some ACC football games on MSG and MSG-Plus, The Post has learned.
Beginning with the upcoming seasons, MSG will televise up to 23 ACC and 10 Big East basketball games. It also will televise up to 10 ACC football games. Specific dates and games have yet to be decided.
Part of the NYC marketing scheme, maybe....
(08-06-2013 10:00 AM)wildthing202 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/f...t=Football
23 hoops and 10 football
Quote:MSG Networks and FOX Sports Media Group are poised to announce an agreement that will televise both ACC and Big East basketball games, and some ACC football games on MSG and MSG-Plus, The Post has learned.
Beginning with the upcoming seasons, MSG will televise up to 23 ACC and 10 Big East basketball games. It also will televise up to 10 ACC football games. Specific dates and games have yet to be decided.
Part of the NYC marketing scheme, maybe....
Statewide carriage, not just NYC. YES & MSG split the ACC regional sports network package.
(08-06-2013 10:00 AM)wildthing202 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/f...t=Football
23 hoops and 10 football
Quote:MSG Networks and FOX Sports Media Group are poised to announce an agreement that will televise both ACC and Big East basketball games, and some ACC football games on MSG and MSG-Plus, The Post has learned.
Beginning with the upcoming seasons, MSG will televise up to 23 ACC and 10 Big East basketball games. It also will televise up to 10 ACC football games. Specific dates and games have yet to be decided.
Part of the NYC marketing scheme, maybe....
the other half of the regional package(RSN) for new york state with yes getting the rest
What did I miss here? I was reading on The Boneyard that The ACC had to have UConn to get coverage in NY City and State. What gives?
CJ
(08-06-2013 12:02 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]What did I miss here? I was reading on The Boneyard that The ACC had to have UConn to get coverage in NY City and State. What gives?
CJ
No, no... YES is the channel that's supposed to be helping the Big Ten Network get on basic cable in NYC. The UConn thing is just a crazy blogger; B1G bloggers are for real!
(08-06-2013 12:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2013 12:02 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]What did I miss here? I was reading on The Boneyard that The ACC had to have UConn to get coverage in NY City and State. What gives?
CJ
No, no... YES is the channel that's supposed to be helping the Big Ten Network get on basic cable in NYC. The UConn thing is just a crazy blogger; B1G bloggers are for real!
Ummm no. UCONN, like WVU, gives NATIONAL coverage. Rutgers gives exclusive NYC coverage (PSU + YES gets upstate NY coverage). Also, the ACC is screwed and Pitt and SU will be forced to drop DI sports.
(08-06-2013 12:02 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]What did I miss here? I was reading on The Boneyard that The ACC had to have UConn to get coverage in NY City and State. What gives?
CJ
It may be on tv but I don't expect ratings to be all that great.
(08-07-2013 03:24 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2013 12:02 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]What did I miss here? I was reading on The Boneyard that The ACC had to have UConn to get coverage in NY City and State. What gives?
CJ
It may be on tv but I don't expect ratings to be all that great.
You gotta start somewhere.
My take is YES/MSG will work together. MSG will get most games early in the season, YES later in the season.
Wow, this is another level of complication to buying back rights for an ACC Network, right?
If I'm following this completely, ACC has sold these games to ESPN, who subleased them to Raycom, who subleased them to Fox, who now is leasing them to MSG?
These are a lot of parties to unwind if we go forward with this...
(08-07-2013 04:12 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, this is another level of complication to buying back rights for an ACC Network, right?
If I'm following this completely, ACC has sold these games to ESPN, who subleased them to Raycom, who subleased them to Fox, who now is leasing them to MSG?
These are a lot of parties to unwind if we go forward with this...
Q: when do these sub-deals expire?
(08-07-2013 05:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2013 04:12 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, this is another level of complication to buying back rights for an ACC Network, right?
If I'm following this completely, ACC has sold these games to ESPN, who subleased them to Raycom, who subleased them to Fox, who now is leasing them to MSG?
These are a lot of parties to unwind if we go forward with this...
Q: when do these sub-deals expire?
Don't know. I think the ESPN sublease to Raycom is for the length of the TV contract. I suspect the Raycom subleases to other outlets are of varying lengths.
A lot of things obviously piss me off about the Raycom deal, but it's one thing if the ACC pressures ESPN to sublease a few games for Raycom to broadcast on its networks. Maybe that's throwing a bone to an good long-time partner.
It burns me that Raycom gets MORE games than they can show though, which it subleases and just makes money on. That's just a payoff/subsidization, and there's no justifiable reason for that.
(08-08-2013 09:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2013 05:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2013 04:12 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, this is another level of complication to buying back rights for an ACC Network, right?
If I'm following this completely, ACC has sold these games to ESPN, who subleased them to Raycom, who subleased them to Fox, who now is leasing them to MSG?
These are a lot of parties to unwind if we go forward with this...
Q: when do these sub-deals expire?
Don't know. I think the ESPN sublease to Raycom is for the length of the TV contract. I suspect the Raycom subleases to other outlets are of varying lengths.
A lot of things obviously piss me off about the Raycom deal, but it's one thing if the ACC pressures ESPN to sublease a few games for Raycom to broadcast on its networks. Maybe that's throwing a bone to an good long-time partner.
It burns me that Raycom gets MORE games than they can show though, which it subleases and just makes money on. That's just a payoff/subsidization, and there's no justifiable reason for that.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the motivation was for more exposure... the ACC didn't want a bunch of games on ESPN3, so they pushed for the Raycom deal to insure that whatever is not on ABC/ESPN/2/U ends up on either OTA or regional cable. Just the sense I get.
(08-08-2013 09:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2013 05:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2013 04:12 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, this is another level of complication to buying back rights for an ACC Network, right?
If I'm following this completely, ACC has sold these games to ESPN, who subleased them to Raycom, who subleased them to Fox, who now is leasing them to MSG?
These are a lot of parties to unwind if we go forward with this...
Q: when do these sub-deals expire?
Don't know. I think the ESPN sublease to Raycom is for the length of the TV contract. I suspect the Raycom subleases to other outlets are of varying lengths.
A lot of things obviously piss me off about the Raycom deal, but it's one thing if the ACC pressures ESPN to sublease a few games for Raycom to broadcast on its networks. Maybe that's throwing a bone to an good long-time partner.
It burns me that Raycom gets MORE games than they can show though, which it subleases and just makes money on. That's just a payoff/subsidization, and there's no justifiable reason for that.
I believe that you are correct, i.e., the Raycom deal is for the length of the ACC-ESPN deal.
(08-08-2013 10:07 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2013 09:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2013 05:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2013 04:12 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, this is another level of complication to buying back rights for an ACC Network, right?
If I'm following this completely, ACC has sold these games to ESPN, who subleased them to Raycom, who subleased them to Fox, who now is leasing them to MSG?
These are a lot of parties to unwind if we go forward with this...
Q: when do these sub-deals expire?
Don't know. I think the ESPN sublease to Raycom is for the length of the TV contract. I suspect the Raycom subleases to other outlets are of varying lengths.
A lot of things obviously piss me off about the Raycom deal, but it's one thing if the ACC pressures ESPN to sublease a few games for Raycom to broadcast on its networks. Maybe that's throwing a bone to an good long-time partner.
It burns me that Raycom gets MORE games than they can show though, which it subleases and just makes money on. That's just a payoff/subsidization, and there's no justifiable reason for that.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the motivation was for more exposure... the ACC didn't want a bunch of games on ESPN3, so they pushed for the Raycom deal to insure that whatever is not on ABC/ESPN/2/U ends up on either OTA or regional cable. Just the sense I get.
Oh, you are not wrong, that's a viable point. For all the money the Big 12 is making, between the LHN and FS1 not being picked up everywhere, they aren't getting the same exposure.
I agree that exposure is important. My issue is, why the Raycom middleman? Or, frankly, the ESPN middleman? If ESPN can't show al the games, the ACC should have cut a second deal. NO other conference is all in with one provider like the ACC is. It's what the ACC wanted, but the market has proven that was not the smartest move $$-wise.
It's done, so not much that can be done about it. I'm going to just chalk it up to a bad move, executed before the ACC leadership really had their eyes opened to how this game really works. I think they are much more prepared now.
And frankly I'm not sure an ACC network is going to pay enough to get married for ALL content to ESPN in perpetuity. Might be better to wait it out, and explore options of a network with an ACC ownership stake, in full or part, or a secondary rights deal with another partner.
If the ACC Network promises $5-10M a year, ok. But if it's something that's not even going to generate revenue for 3-4 years, and then it's throwing off an extra $1-2M, I say wait it out.
The value in the sub leasing of ACC telecasts confirms Swafford's comments concerning the potential popularity of an ACC Network. If The ACC can some how partner with Raycom and ESPN, an ACC Network might be easier to put together than some realize. A subscription type arrangement with its broadcast partners might prove to be more lucrative for the conference than fighting the platform and tier battles The Big 10, PAC, LHN and now SEC are fighting.
CJ
(08-08-2013 10:20 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that exposure is important. My issue is, why the Raycom middleman? Or, frankly, the ESPN middleman? If ESPN can't show al the games, the ACC should have cut a second deal. NO other conference is all in with one provider like the ACC is. It's what the ACC wanted, but the market has proven that was not the smartest move $$-wise.
Conference offices generally don't have the expertise to produce their own broadcasts and negotiate their own distribution deals across the country. Raycom has the ACC weekend package on out in San Francisco. How's the ACC office going to handle that? They don't have the expertise, the personnel, or the relationships built up. The ACC Digital Network is even run and produced by Raycom. It is essentially a distribution and production deal and based on how far and wide ACC content is being distributed, I don't think Raycom is doing a bad job at all.
(08-08-2013 09:32 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]It burns me that Raycom gets MORE games than they can show though, which it subleases and just makes money on. That's just a payoff/subsidization, and there's no justifiable reason for that.
Sure there is. Chad Swofford needed gainful employment.
Hey, just trying to connect some dots here as to the type of network that the ACC might develop.
I was reading:
http://www.theacc.com/#!/news-detail/ACC...-13_uvhz82
and this line stood out to me from the link:
Quote:In addition to ESPN, the ACC Network through Raycom continues to be broader than ever before, with a reach of over 68 million households and no geographic parameters on the distribution
.
That got me thinking and I ran across this from today:
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/raycom-...00948.html
Quote:Burke summarized, "In recent years, our local stations have expanded the number of hours of locally-produced content, in part because of the rising cost of syndicated content, as well as to meet viewer preferences. Local news is a significant part of our programming schedule and revenue stream. With LiveU, we can originate and produce more live and original content."
Which got me fishing and I found this:
http://www.liveu.tv/sports.html#Live
and this:
http://forumblog.org/2013/10/the-mobile-...llite-van/
Now, I was wondering why the ACC would opt to not have a channel like the SECN run by ESPN? This answers it. Does Raycom offer the ACC more flexibility and customization than ESPN? Looks to be so.
Seems like I can watch an ACC game on ESPN on my TV and have my phone or tablet in my hand and get "inside", "custom" ACC content from Raycom with next to no delay, real time. The ACC network may enhance the ESPN experience without purchasing an additional network channel.
I may be way off base with this post so sorry if this is a dead end! Just a couple of things I ran across today. Would love to hear from some posters actually in the industry.
The ACC sold some Tier 3 rights to Raycom...the ACC can't do much unless Raycom is part of it.