http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/04/28/...-up-steam/
I know there are cynics here, but I'm in the camp a network of some sort will happen.
Starting to get the sense the member schools are ready for some more details themselves from Swofford, but it seems clear it hasn't been tabled from what they do know.
Unless there are revenue levels promised, I don't want to see a GOR extension come with this. I'd rather no network than a network with a GOR in that circumstance.
I think we are more likely to just see a rebranding of online content, small revenue, and an attempt to extend the GOR.
That's one of the better pieces I've read on the subject. Kudos to Radakovich.
Glad to see he's vouching for the ACC taking this seriously.
(04-28-2016 03:13 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Unless there are revenue levels promised, I don't want to see a GOR extension come with this. I'd rather no network than a network with a GOR in that circumstance.
I think we are more likely to just see a rebranding of online content, small revenue, and an attempt to extend the GOR.
ND would fight a GOR extension.
(04-28-2016 02:06 PM)GTTiger Wrote: [ -> ]http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/04/28/...-up-steam/
I know there are cynics here, but I'm in the camp a network of some sort will happen.
Starting to get the sense the member schools are ready for some more details themselves from Swofford, but it seems clear it hasn't been tabled from what they do know.
Great link GTTiger !
The following is what caught my attention:
"I know there is a lot of work going on within the league office and our consultant is actually handling the negotiations. I know with Commissioner Swofford that is the first thing he thinks about every time he walks into the office."
A few of Swoffords many critics on this board have complained that he is screwing this up because he didn't hire consultants. Well we know that's not at all true. I'm encouraged, now that I know for sure that the ACC has professionals handling the ACCN tv negotiations, and not the ACC itself. The following statement is very imformative:
“I think the one reason why it has been kind of pushed back a little bit, and I think you guys have heard this before is the distribution channels and the ability for ESPN to get on the Comcast, the Time Warner and the DirecTV. Those are really done during their contract negotiation periods or renewals with those cable providers and those start to happen in 2018, ‘19 and ‘20.
Someone once suggested that the delay may have something to do with buying back inventory and, or waiting for negotiation periods to come about or the buyback price for inventory to get lower as the current agreements came closer to ending. They seemed to be somewhat, on the money.
(04-28-2016 03:18 PM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]That's one of the better pieces I've read on the subject. Kudos to Radakovich.
Glad to see he's vouching for the ACC taking this seriously.
Agree, acc should let him take the lead on this.
(04-28-2016 04:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 02:06 PM)GTTiger Wrote: [ -> ]http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/04/28/...-up-steam/
I know there are cynics here, but I'm in the camp a network of some sort will happen.
Starting to get the sense the member schools are ready for some more details themselves from Swofford, but it seems clear it hasn't been tabled from what they do know.
Great link GTTiger !
The following is what caught my attention:
"I know there is a lot of work going on within the league office and our consultant is actually handling the negotiations. I know with Commissioner Swofford that is the first thing he thinks about every time he walks into the office."
A few of Swoffords many critics on this board have complained that he is screwing this up because he didn't hire consultants. Well we know that's not at all true. I'm encouraged, now that I know for sure that the ACC has professionals handling the ACCN tv negotiations, and not the ACC itself. The following statement is very imformative:
“I think the one reason why it has been kind of pushed back a little bit, and I think you guys have heard this before is the distribution channels and the ability for ESPN to get on the Comcast, the Time Warner and the DirecTV. Those are really done during their contract negotiation periods or renewals with those cable providers and those start to happen in 2018, ‘19 and ‘20.
Someone once suggested that the delay may have something to do with buying back inventory and, or waiting for negotiation periods to come about or the buyback price for inventory to get lower as the current agreements came closer to ending. They seemed to be somewhat, on the money.
I'll buy waiting for negotiation windows to package with the rest of Disney, ESPN, SECN, and ABC content. I'll also buy time to buy back content. I don't think that waiting for prices to go down is a viable reason. If the prices go down, it's because the content is less valuable. If a conference-owned network is an inherently better option, then we would be better off buying sooner at a high price than later at a low price.*
*FWIW, I think that the value of networks is severely overblown.
The price would go down because there is less of it to buy back.
(04-28-2016 08:14 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 07:37 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote: [ -> ]The price would go down because there is less of it to buy back.
You Got It!
Right, and since there's less of the content, the content is less valuable, no?
Regardless, if the content is more valuable in your hands than the other guy's hands, then there is a net loss by waiting once you account for the opportunity cost. Therefore, waiting for the price to do down isn't a valid reason unless a network is a bad idea in and of itself.
(04-28-2016 10:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 08:14 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 07:37 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote: [ -> ]The price would go down because there is less of it to buy back.
You Got It!
Right, and since there's less of the content, the content is less valuable, no?
Regardless, if the content is more valuable in your hands than the other guy's hands, then there is a net loss by waiting once you account for the opportunity cost. Therefore, waiting for the price to do down isn't a valid reason unless a network is a bad idea in and of itself.
I'll just trust that the consultants that the ACC hired to handle this will know better than us internet posters.
(04-28-2016 04:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 02:06 PM)GTTiger Wrote: [ -> ]http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/04/28/...-up-steam/
I know there are cynics here, but I'm in the camp a network of some sort will happen.
Starting to get the sense the member schools are ready for some more details themselves from Swofford, but it seems clear it hasn't been tabled from what they do know.
Great link GTTiger !
The following is what caught my attention:
"I know there is a lot of work going on within the league office and our consultant is actually handling the negotiations. I know with Commissioner Swofford that is the first thing he thinks about every time he walks into the office."
A few of Swoffords many critics on this board have complained that he is screwing this up because he didn't hire consultants. Well we know that's not at all true. I'm encouraged, now that I know for sure that the ACC has professionals handling the ACCN tv negotiations, and not the ACC itself. The following statement is very imformative:
“I think the one reason why it has been kind of pushed back a little bit, and I think you guys have heard this before is the distribution channels and the ability for ESPN to get on the Comcast, the Time Warner and the DirecTV. Those are really done during their contract negotiation periods or renewals with those cable providers and those start to happen in 2018, ‘19 and ‘20.
Someone once suggested that the delay may have something to do with buying back inventory and, or waiting for negotiation periods to come about or the buyback price for inventory to get lower as the current agreements came closer to ending. They seemed to be somewhat, on the money.
Given the cloak of secrecy they like to drape over everything, one thing the ACC and Swofford has been totally explicit about is that they are NOT going to get into an embarrassing carriage fight. The day it's officially announced, it will basically have carriage everywhere.
I've always been dubious of a network for various reasons, but when you talk about how long the ACC network has taken to come together, you have to keep that in mind. Anything involving carriage is going to come BEFORE an announcement. The Big 10 network took YEARS to get carriage done, during which it was often derided as a failure. The LHN took years to establish carriage, and the PAC is still in the throes of it years into the project.
Understanding that YEARS of carriage negotiations are the norm (SEC the only exception, and we don't know how much of that got done before the announcement or when negotiations actually started), combined with the fact that the ACC has been explicit that they're not going to launch without full carriage, nothing about the length of time it has taken is particularly disturbing to me.
(04-29-2016 08:00 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 04:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 02:06 PM)GTTiger Wrote: [ -> ]http://theclemsoninsider.com/2016/04/28/...-up-steam/
I know there are cynics here, but I'm in the camp a network of some sort will happen.
Starting to get the sense the member schools are ready for some more details themselves from Swofford, but it seems clear it hasn't been tabled from what they do know.
Great link GTTiger !
The following is what caught my attention:
"I know there is a lot of work going on within the league office and our consultant is actually handling the negotiations. I know with Commissioner Swofford that is the first thing he thinks about every time he walks into the office."
A few of Swoffords many critics on this board have complained that he is screwing this up because he didn't hire consultants. Well we know that's not at all true. I'm encouraged, now that I know for sure that the ACC has professionals handling the ACCN tv negotiations, and not the ACC itself. The following statement is very imformative:
“I think the one reason why it has been kind of pushed back a little bit, and I think you guys have heard this before is the distribution channels and the ability for ESPN to get on the Comcast, the Time Warner and the DirecTV. Those are really done during their contract negotiation periods or renewals with those cable providers and those start to happen in 2018, ‘19 and ‘20.
Someone once suggested that the delay may have something to do with buying back inventory and, or waiting for negotiation periods to come about or the buyback price for inventory to get lower as the current agreements came closer to ending. They seemed to be somewhat, on the money.
Given the cloak of secrecy they like to drape over everything, one thing the ACC and Swofford has been totally explicit about is that they are NOT going to get into an embarrassing carriage fight. The day it's officially announced, it will basically have carriage everywhere.
I've always been dubious of a network for various reasons, but when you talk about how long the ACC network has taken to come together, you have to keep that in mind. Anything involving carriage is going to come BEFORE an announcement. The Big 10 network took YEARS to get carriage done, during which it was often derided as a failure. The LHN took years to establish carriage, and the PAC is still in the throes of it years into the project.
Understanding that YEARS of carriage negotiations are the norm (SEC the only exception, and we don't know how much of that got done before the announcement or when negotiations actually started), combined with the fact that the ACC has been explicit that they're not going to launch without full carriage, nothing about the length of time it has taken is particularly disturbing to me.
All good points. But I can certainly understand why so many posters on this board are so negative about a network ever starting. They are looking for snippets of info or updates or something. But there's none to be had. Even school AD's apparently don't know what real progress is taking place, and I think any intimate details regarding the network are only known at the highest levels, meaning presidents. And I would bet that some presidents know more details than others. The Acc has really learned its lesson since the 2003 public expansion debacle.
But thanks to the snippet linked from GTTiger, I'm more encouraged than I have been in a long time that progress is being made in launching a network. After about 3 years now, if it wasn't happening you wouldn't be hearing these kinds of snippets coming from AD's.
I believe the future of an ACC Network lies in an option like this.
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/mil...201756677/
As one who is adamantly opposed to another SEC, BTN type Network, I believe live broadcasts on a Netflix type platform holds tremendous opportunity for The ACC. I am hopeful our future lies here with an app on every cell phone, every DVD player, every computer sold, prepackaged preloaded.
Keep in mind that over half the viewers of broadcast TV are 49 -54. Young people don't watch TV.
CJ
(04-28-2016 03:28 PM)Dasville Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 03:13 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Unless there are revenue levels promised, I don't want to see a GOR extension come with this. I'd rather no network than a network with a GOR in that circumstance.
I think we are more likely to just see a rebranding of online content, small revenue, and an attempt to extend the GOR.
ND would fight a GOR extension.
I could see ND running away
,
(04-29-2016 10:40 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I believe the future of an ACC Network lies in an option like this.
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/mil...201756677/
As one who is adamantly opposed to another SEC, BTN type Network, I believe live broadcasts on a Netflix type platform holds tremendous opportunity for The ACC. I am hopeful our future lies here with an app on every cell phone, every DVD player, every computer sold, prepackaged preloaded.
Keep in mind that over half the viewers of broadcast TV are 49 -54. Young people don't watch TV.
CJ
But no matter how you watch, it you will have to pay. There are no free lunches!
I think ND likes the current ACC membership enough to stick around. it's been mutually beneficial.
(04-29-2016 10:51 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 03:28 PM)Dasville Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 03:13 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Unless there are revenue levels promised, I don't want to see a GOR extension come with this. I'd rather no network than a network with a GOR in that circumstance.
I think we are more likely to just see a rebranding of online content, small revenue, and an attempt to extend the GOR.
ND would fight a GOR extension.
I could see ND running away ,
(04-29-2016 10:51 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 03:28 PM)Dasville Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2016 03:13 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Unless there are revenue levels promised, I don't want to see a GOR extension come with this. I'd rather no network than a network with a GOR in that circumstance.
I think we are more likely to just see a rebranding of online content, small revenue, and an attempt to extend the GOR.
ND would fight a GOR extension.
I could see ND running away ,
I want to know why you believe we wouldn't sign a extension to the GoR?
