CSNbbs

ACC secures first carriage fees

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...work.aspx?

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

Jim,

Great find! Thanks for sharing.

So, it looks like ESPN will sign up the streaming TV providers first, then negotiate with Charter, ATT and Verizon in 2019 (just as the ACC network is about to launch). That puts pressure on the cable companies knowing that sports fans will have the option to go with Sling, etc.

The ACC ain't going anywhere folks, much to the chagrin of the haters...

http://theklowntimes.net/2017/06/27/acc-...ing-along/

(06-28-2017 07:08 AM)sburks1906 Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC ain't going anywhere folks, much to the chagrin of the haters...

http://theklowntimes.net/2017/06/27/acc-...ing-along/

Call me when the revenue gap is below $10 Million with B1G/SEC, then we can do a victory lap.

(06-28-2017 09:34 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 07:08 AM)sburks1906 Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC ain't going anywhere folks, much to the chagrin of the haters...

http://theklowntimes.net/2017/06/27/acc-...ing-along/

Call me when the revenue gap is below $10 Million with B1G/SEC, then we can do a victory lap.

I'm very optimistic, but I have to agree with nole here... it's still too soon to pop the cork on the champagne.


Still, you're probably looking at somewhere between $4M and $26M per year per school. If they can get to the midpoint of that range, the ACC should be fine.

for more: http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2017/0...-2017.html

I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.
CJ



Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.
CJ

I think money matters primarily for hiring and retaining coaches. Just ask the programs in the AAC how frustrating it is to hire a great coach, only to have some wealthier program snatch him away from you after a few years.

Now imagine that happening to YOUR favorite team -- repeatedly!

That's why it's important to stay "close" in terms of money. The rich teams may be able to hire one of your coaches away, but they won't be able to afford to do it very often.

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.
CJ



Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

How you think that looks over a 10 year period?

How you think it will look over the next 10 with the gap at $15 Million plus?


You can pretend $ doesn't matter....you can pretend in unicorns, but it doesn't make it accurate.

(06-28-2017 01:47 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.
CJ



Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

How you think that looks over a 10 year period?

How you think it will look over the next 10 with the gap at $15 Million plus?


You can pretend $ doesn't matter....you can pretend in unicorns, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Come on man, you making it out like $ equals success on the field, court, pitch, etc. The table you just presented list the Pac12 with the most championships. The Pac12 revenue is hardly the SEC and BIG.

Then, the richest public university, Texas, barely registers over the last 10 years when it comes to winning NCAA championships.

Then, the two revenue sports the ACC has either won multiple titles over the last 10 years or was runner up.

So again, why equate $ with success on the field?

(06-28-2017 02:41 PM)Indytarheel Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 01:47 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.
CJ



Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

How you think that looks over a 10 year period?

How you think it will look over the next 10 with the gap at $15 Million plus?


You can pretend $ doesn't matter....you can pretend in unicorns, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Come on man, you making it out like $ equals success on the field, court, pitch, etc. The table you just presented list the Pac12 with the most championships. The Pac12 revenue is hardly the SEC and BIG.

Then, the richest public university, Texas, barely registers over the last 10 years when it comes to winning NCAA championships.

Then, the two revenue sports the ACC has either won multiple titles over the last 10 years or was runner up.

So again, why equate $ with success on the field?

What....you mean the Pac 12 with Stanford, the richest school in the NCAA with a sports endowment of over $500 Million (next closest is half of that and the next closest is half of that).

Or maybe you are talking about Oregon, the school that is financially set with Nike and the HUNDREDS of millions that company keeps pouring into the school

Not to mention USC/UCLA and there generations of money.

Do you have ANY idea how many national titles Texas has?
http://www.texassports.com/sports/2013/7...spx?id=328

53


You can't see the forest through the trees. Money matters. NOBODY really believes it doesn't, but folks lose it over this topic for some bizarre reason.

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.

CJ

Yes, they are. At least for a short period of time thus far.

Football
(teams currently in the ACC over the past 5 years)

2 National Champs - Clemson (2016), FSU (2013)

1 Runner Up - Clemson (2015)

1 Final Four rep - FSU (2014)

Event Bowl winner - FSU (2016), GT (2014)

Event Bowl rep - FSU (2015)

BCS Bowl winner - Clemson (2013), Louisville (2012)

Basketball
(teams currently in the ACC over the past 5 years)

3 National Championships - UNC (2017), Duke (2015), Louisville (2013)

1 Runner Up - UNC (2016)

2 Final Four reps - Syracuse (2016, 2013)

5 Elite 8 reps - Notre Dame (2016, 2015), Virginia (2016), Louisville (2015), Duke (2013)

Just need some more depth in football to help whenever FSU or Clemson are down.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-28-2017 07:31 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.

CJ

Yes, they are. At least for a short period of time thus far.

Football
(teams currently in the ACC over the past 5 years)

2 National Champs - Clemson (2016), FSU (2013)

1 Runner Up - Clemson (2015)

1 Final Four rep - FSU (2014)

Event Bowl winner - FSU (2016), GT (2014)

Event Bowl rep - FSU (2015)

BCS Bowl winner - Clemson (2013), Louisville (2012)

Basketball
(teams currently in the ACC over the past 5 years)

3 National Championships - UNC (2017), Duke (2015), Louisville (2013)

1 Runner Up - UNC (2016)

2 Final Four reps - Syracuse (2016, 2013)

5 Elite 8 reps - Notre Dame (2016, 2015), Virginia (2016), Louisville (2015), Duke (2013)

Just need some more depth in football to help whenever FSU or Clemson are down.

Cheers,
Neil

Its great having you back Neil. I was wondering what happened to you. Its good reading your perspective on different issues.

(06-28-2017 08:22 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 07:31 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.

CJ

Yes, they are. At least for a short period of time thus far.

Football
(teams currently in the ACC over the past 5 years)

2 National Champs - Clemson (2016), FSU (2013)

1 Runner Up - Clemson (2015)

1 Final Four rep - FSU (2014)

Event Bowl winner - FSU (2016), GT (2014)

Event Bowl rep - FSU (2015)

BCS Bowl winner - Clemson (2013), Louisville (2012)

Basketball
(teams currently in the ACC over the past 5 years)

3 National Championships - UNC (2017), Duke (2015), Louisville (2013)

1 Runner Up - UNC (2016)

2 Final Four reps - Syracuse (2016, 2013)

5 Elite 8 reps - Notre Dame (2016, 2015), Virginia (2016), Louisville (2015), Duke (2013)

Just need some more depth in football to help whenever FSU or Clemson are down.

Cheers,
Neil

Its great having you back Neil. I was wondering what happened to you. Its good reading your perspective on different issues.

Thanks cuseroc, glad to be back.


Neil

(06-28-2017 01:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.
CJ

I think money matters primarily for hiring and retaining coaches. Just ask the programs in the AAC how frustrating it is to hire a great coach, only to have some wealthier program snatch him away from you after a few years.

Now imagine that happening to YOUR favorite team -- repeatedly!

That's why it's important to stay "close" in terms of money. The rich teams may be able to hire one of your coaches away, but they won't be able to afford to do it very often.

I agree with what you said, both in terms of money mattering and in terms of why. A moderately successful ACCN will help. However, I still believe until the Orange Bowl deal comes up again for renewal it will be tough to close the gap significantly.

The (much too) early data seems promising at the moment:

Non NC Rose Bowl (2015) - Stanford vs Iowa - rating share 7.4, 13.55M viewers

Non NC Rose Bowl (2016) - USC vs PSU - rating share 8.6, 15.74M viewers

Non NC Orange Bowl (2014) - GT vs Miss. St. - rating share 5.0, 8.94M viewers

Non NC Orange Bowl (2016) - FSU vs Mich. - rating share 6.2, 11.46M viewers

Non NC Sugar Bowl (2015) - Ole Miss vs Okla St. - rating share 7.1, 8.95M viewers

Non NC Sugar Bowl (2016) - OU vs Aub - rating share 5.6, 9.52M viewers


While the Orange can't match the Rose's numbers (neither does the Sugar), the Orange comes close enough to be competitive with the Sugar's numbers in this first quarter of the 12 year contract.

So far, it appears as though the $55M for the Orange is way undervalued. It may never get what the Rose and Sugar are now $80M but an increase to either $65M or $70M appears to be doable in the next contract as long as the numbers don't take a nose-dive.

With a $65M, I could see the payout remaining $27.5M to the SEC or B1G rep while the ACC jumps up to $37.5M and a $70M pot being split SEC or B1G $30M and the ACC getting $40M.

More importantly, right now the split if it is ND, is ACC $40M and ND $15M. If it increases to $65M or $70M I could see that split being $50M to $15M or $55M to $15M.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-28-2017 03:19 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 02:41 PM)Indytarheel Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 01:47 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.
CJ



Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

How you think that looks over a 10 year period?

How you think it will look over the next 10 with the gap at $15 Million plus?


You can pretend $ doesn't matter....you can pretend in unicorns, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Come on man, you making it out like $ equals success on the field, court, pitch, etc. The table you just presented list the Pac12 with the most championships. The Pac12 revenue is hardly the SEC and BIG.

Then, the richest public university, Texas, barely registers over the last 10 years when it comes to winning NCAA championships.

Then, the two revenue sports the ACC has either won multiple titles over the last 10 years or was runner up.

So again, why equate $ with success on the field?

What....you mean the Pac 12 with Stanford, the richest school in the NCAA with a sports endowment of over $500 Million (next closest is half of that and the next closest is half of that).

Or maybe you are talking about Oregon, the school that is financially set with Nike and the HUNDREDS of millions that company keeps pouring into the school

Not to mention USC/UCLA and there generations of money.

Do you have ANY idea how many national titles Texas has?
http://www.texassports.com/sports/2013/7...spx?id=328

53


You can't see the forest through the trees. Money matters. NOBODY really believes it doesn't, but folks lose it over this topic for some bizarre reason.

Why do you always only talk with that tone about the ACC? What if the ACC is sitting in third in revenue, ahead of the B12 and Pac? Would you then recognize the same challenges for those conferences that you continually rail on the ACC for?

(06-28-2017 09:13 PM)uofl05 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 03:19 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 02:41 PM)Indytarheel Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 01:47 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 12:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care how much cash your program is earning; if it doesn't result in on the field success it does not matter.

The ACC is getting it done on the field.
CJ



Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

How you think that looks over a 10 year period?

How you think it will look over the next 10 with the gap at $15 Million plus?


You can pretend $ doesn't matter....you can pretend in unicorns, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Come on man, you making it out like $ equals success on the field, court, pitch, etc. The table you just presented list the Pac12 with the most championships. The Pac12 revenue is hardly the SEC and BIG.

Then, the richest public university, Texas, barely registers over the last 10 years when it comes to winning NCAA championships.

Then, the two revenue sports the ACC has either won multiple titles over the last 10 years or was runner up.

So again, why equate $ with success on the field?

What....you mean the Pac 12 with Stanford, the richest school in the NCAA with a sports endowment of over $500 Million (next closest is half of that and the next closest is half of that).

Or maybe you are talking about Oregon, the school that is financially set with Nike and the HUNDREDS of millions that company keeps pouring into the school

Not to mention USC/UCLA and there generations of money.

Do you have ANY idea how many national titles Texas has?
http://www.texassports.com/sports/2013/7...spx?id=328

53


You can't see the forest through the trees. Money matters. NOBODY really believes it doesn't, but folks lose it over this topic for some bizarre reason.

Why do you always only talk with that tone about the ACC? What if the ACC is sitting in third in revenue, ahead of the B12 and Pac? Would you then recognize the same challenges for those conferences that you continually rail on the ACC for?

What?

Why would he care if other conferences were lagging behind? I feel safe speaking for nole in that he like me doesn't give a damn about the AAC being so far behind that they can't compete because we aren't in the AAC.

A little research reveals.....

Stanford's 4 championships this year:
Women's Tennis, Women's Volleyball, Women's Swimming and Women's Water Polo

Note: It's been a decade since Stanford has won a championship in a Men's team sport.

Oklahoma's 4 championships this year:
Men's Golf, Men's Gymnastics, Women's Gymnastics and Women's Softball

Note: It's been 17 years since Oklahoma won a championship in a Big Three Sport. (Men's Basketball, Baseball or Football)

I commend these athletes that compete in relative anonymity but you can't compare any of these eight championships with UNC's Men's Basketball, Clemson's Football or Florida's Baseball championships.
CJ

(06-28-2017 10:15 PM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]A little research reveals.....

Stanford's 4 championships this year:
Women's Tennis, Women's Volleyball, Women's Swimming and Women's Water Polo

Note: It's been a decade since Stanford has won a championship in a Men's team sport.

Oklahoma's 4 championships this year:
Men's Golf, Men's Gymnastics, Women's Gymnastics and Women's Softball

Note: It's been 17 years since Oklahoma won a championship in a Big Three Sport. (Men's Basketball, Baseball or Football)

I commend these athletes that compete in relative anonymity but you can't compare any of these eight championships with UNC's Men's Basketball, Clemson's Football or Florida's Baseball championships.
CJ

So more money means more championships in sports nobody watches? UVA should be all over that!

(06-28-2017 09:34 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 07:08 AM)sburks1906 Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC ain't going anywhere folks, much to the chagrin of the haters...

http://theklowntimes.net/2017/06/27/acc-...ing-along/

Call me when the revenue gap is below $10 Million with B1G/SEC, then we can do a victory lap.

Oh ye of little faith. I think you are sellin the ACC Network waaaaay too short. Even the more conservative estimates have the ACC within $10 mil of the "Power 2" conferences, which last I checked is a VERY good thing...