Before you write off the ACCDN ventures... in 2008 many didn't think the Big 10 network would turn a profit, and before that the SEC Championship Game was met with great skepticism.

I like that the ACC is at the forefront of something. I don't know for sure if it will turn a big profit, but I like this stance rather than the reactionary one the ACC had for so many years.

(04-17-2015 09:42 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  Before you write off the ACCDN ventures... in 2008 many didn't think the Big 10 network would turn a profit, and before that the SEC Championship Game was met with great skepticism.

I like that the ACC is at the forefront of something. I don't know for sure if it will turn a big profit, but I like this stance rather than the reactionary one the ACC had for so many years.

If you're replying to me, don't misunderstand my post. I, like you, and all for it. I honestly doubt that we are going to be raking in the dinero in the foreseeable future because of it (the intended topic of my posts), but the ACCDN certainly doesn't hurt, and the exposure alone is a plus.

I wish that we would have done a better job negotiating the OB and our first media contract with ESPN. Those two blunders cost us a lot. But, there is nothing that we can do about them. During the next go around, the ACC needs to take the Sugar Bowls spot and/or the ACC needs to play the best of the rest in the OB with a payout that HEAVILY favors the ACC. We also need a media contract that doesn't do anybody's kid any favors. Had we done those two things right during the last go around, we would be in a very strong position. In fact, ignoring those two (substantial) issues, we have a lot going for us. ACC teams are now exceedingly competitive in basketball and tangibly better in football. We also have a more proactive approach to business (i.e. we led the CCG deregulation and have the ACCDN).

Fortunately, we can learn from those mistakes and we will very likely be in a better bargaining position int he future. I doubt this next decade will be as bad for the conference as the last one.

(04-17-2015 09:42 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  Before you write off the ACCDN ventures... in 2008 many didn't think the Big 10 network would turn a profit, and before that the SEC Championship Game was met with great skepticism.

I like that the ACC is at the forefront of something. I don't know for sure if it will turn a big profit, but I like this stance rather than the reactionary one the ACC had for so many years.

Huge difference between the BTN and ACCDN: the BTN has rights to broadcast football and basketball games, the ACCDN can only broadcast highlights, pre- and post-game shows, and some Olympic sports.

That's why I doubt the ACCDN, in its current format, will ever command a subscription fee - but it can and does bring in some advertising income.

(04-17-2015 09:49 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I wish that we would have done a better job negotiating the OB and our first media contract with ESPN. Those two blunders cost us a lot. But, there is nothing that we can do about them. During the next go around, the ACC needs to take the Sugar Bowls spot and/or the ACC needs to play the best of the rest in the OB with a payout that HEAVILY favors the ACC. We also need a media contract that doesn't do anybody's kid any favors. Had we done those two things right during the last go around, we would be in a very strong position. In fact, ignoring those two (substantial) issues, we have a lot going for us. ACC teams are now exceedingly competitive in basketball and tangibly better in football. We also have a more proactive approach to business (i.e. we led the CCG deregulation and have the ACCDN).

Fortunately, we can learn from those mistakes and we will very likely be in a better bargaining position int he future. I doubt this next decade will be as bad for the conference as the last one.

The ACC was in an extreme position of weakness with the Sugar Bowl. Just piss poor timing due to a streak of ACC bad postseason play and rumors of teams leaving.

(04-17-2015 10:14 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 09:49 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I wish that we would have done a better job negotiating the OB and our first media contract with ESPN. Those two blunders cost us a lot. But, there is nothing that we can do about them. During the next go around, the ACC needs to take the Sugar Bowls spot and/or the ACC needs to play the best of the rest in the OB with a payout that HEAVILY favors the ACC. We also need a media contract that doesn't do anybody's kid any favors. Had we done those two things right during the last go around, we would be in a very strong position. In fact, ignoring those two (substantial) issues, we have a lot going for us. ACC teams are now exceedingly competitive in basketball and tangibly better in football. We also have a more proactive approach to business (i.e. we led the CCG deregulation and have the ACCDN).

Fortunately, we can learn from those mistakes and we will very likely be in a better bargaining position int he future. I doubt this next decade will be as bad for the conference as the last one.

The ACC was in an extreme position of weakness with the Sugar Bowl. Just piss poor timing due to a streak of ACC bad postseason play and rumors of teams leaving.

Agreed, but a 27.5-27.5 split is ridiculous. An ACC #1 v. best of the rest would be equal to, or better than, the SB and RB and there's no way the split should be anywhere close to 50-50.

Even if it was a $55 MM pot, the ACC should have kept $45 MM and given $10 to the other team. That would have kept the ACC payout strong (#1, actually) and been a steal for the other team who would be making a cool several million more than the alternative.

(04-17-2015 10:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 09:42 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  Before you write off the ACCDN ventures... in 2008 many didn't think the Big 10 network would turn a profit, and before that the SEC Championship Game was met with great skepticism.

I like that the ACC is at the forefront of something. I don't know for sure if it will turn a big profit, but I like this stance rather than the reactionary one the ACC had for so many years.

Huge difference between the BTN and ACCDN: the BTN has rights to broadcast football and basketball games, the ACCDN can only broadcast highlights, pre- and post-game shows, and some Olympic sports.

That's why I doubt the ACCDN, in its current format, will ever command a subscription fee - but it can and does bring in some advertising income.

I'm not in the business so I don't understand the reasoning behind each University having and keeping their own games in-house as opposed to making it available nationally. I won't pay money to subscribe to "WatchDukeTV" to watch a single UofL baseball game, but I would be willing (as long as the price is right) to subscribe to the ACCDN in order to catch multiple away game Olympic sports and events and coaches shows.

It's just sitting there.

The PAC12 is looking in this direction as well I think.

(04-17-2015 10:50 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 09:42 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  Before you write off the ACCDN ventures... in 2008 many didn't think the Big 10 network would turn a profit, and before that the SEC Championship Game was met with great skepticism.

I like that the ACC is at the forefront of something. I don't know for sure if it will turn a big profit, but I like this stance rather than the reactionary one the ACC had for so many years.

Huge difference between the BTN and ACCDN: the BTN has rights to broadcast football and basketball games, the ACCDN can only broadcast highlights, pre- and post-game shows, and some Olympic sports.

That's why I doubt the ACCDN, in its current format, will ever command a subscription fee - but it can and does bring in some advertising income.

I'm not in the business so I don't understand the reasoning behind each University having and keeping their own games in-house as opposed to making it available nationally. I won't pay money to subscribe to "WatchDukeTV" to watch a single UofL baseball game, but I would be willing (as long as the price is right) to subscribe to the ACCDN in order to catch multiple away game Olympic sports and events and coaches shows.

It's just sitting there.

The PAC12 is looking in this direction as well I think.

I recently paid $9.95 to watch three ND/Pitt baseball games, then cancelled the subscription to Pitt TV or whatever it was.

So, I will (and have, often) pay money to some other school's subscription plan to watch ND baseball, but won't keep it after that particular series is over.

WatchND is a free subscription program (and iPhone app) in case anyone wants to watch their team play ND.

I am not sure that I would be willing to pay for a conference wide network on a subscription basis. I simply would not watch any non-ND content. Hell, I don't care to watch any coaches shows, even ND ones. The same with "classic games". They are on You Tube, anyway.

(04-17-2015 11:01 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:50 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 09:42 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  Before you write off the ACCDN ventures... in 2008 many didn't think the Big 10 network would turn a profit, and before that the SEC Championship Game was met with great skepticism.

I like that the ACC is at the forefront of something. I don't know for sure if it will turn a big profit, but I like this stance rather than the reactionary one the ACC had for so many years.

Huge difference between the BTN and ACCDN: the BTN has rights to broadcast football and basketball games, the ACCDN can only broadcast highlights, pre- and post-game shows, and some Olympic sports.

That's why I doubt the ACCDN, in its current format, will ever command a subscription fee - but it can and does bring in some advertising income.

I'm not in the business so I don't understand the reasoning behind each University having and keeping their own games in-house as opposed to making it available nationally. I won't pay money to subscribe to "WatchDukeTV" to watch a single UofL baseball game, but I would be willing (as long as the price is right) to subscribe to the ACCDN in order to catch multiple away game Olympic sports and events and coaches shows.

It's just sitting there.

The PAC12 is looking in this direction as well I think.

I recently paid $9.95 to watch three ND/Pitt baseball games, then cancelled the subscription to Pitt TV or whatever it was.

So, I will (and have, often) pay money to some other school's subscription plan to watch ND baseball, but won't keep it after that particular series is over.

WatchND is a free subscription program (and iPhone app) in case anyone wants to watch their team play ND.

I am not sure that I would be willing to pay for a conference wide network on a subscription basis. I simply would not watch any non-ND content. Hell, I don't care to watch any coaches shows, even ND ones. The same with "classic games". They are on You Tube, anyway.

I know you don't care but I wonder how many other ND sports played at PITT that month that was on WatchPitt (or whatever?). You didn't pay $3 per baseball game. If done correctly, you may have been able to watch 5 or 6 or more ND games (both men and women) in multiple sports. THAT is how it should be marketed and shared by the conference.

(04-17-2015 10:29 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:14 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 09:49 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I wish that we would have done a better job negotiating the OB and our first media contract with ESPN. Those two blunders cost us a lot. But, there is nothing that we can do about them. During the next go around, the ACC needs to take the Sugar Bowls spot and/or the ACC needs to play the best of the rest in the OB with a payout that HEAVILY favors the ACC. We also need a media contract that doesn't do anybody's kid any favors. Had we done those two things right during the last go around, we would be in a very strong position. In fact, ignoring those two (substantial) issues, we have a lot going for us. ACC teams are now exceedingly competitive in basketball and tangibly better in football. We also have a more proactive approach to business (i.e. we led the CCG deregulation and have the ACCDN).

Fortunately, we can learn from those mistakes and we will very likely be in a better bargaining position int he future. I doubt this next decade will be as bad for the conference as the last one.

The ACC was in an extreme position of weakness with the Sugar Bowl. Just piss poor timing due to a streak of ACC bad postseason play and rumors of teams leaving.

Agreed, but a 27.5-27.5 split is ridiculous. An ACC #1 v. best of the rest would be equal to, or better than, the SB and RB and there's no way the split should be anywhere close to 50-50.

Even if it was a $55 MM pot, the ACC should have kept $45 MM and given $10 to the other team. That would have kept the ACC payout strong (#1, actually) and been a steal for the other team who would be making a cool several million more than the alternative.

I just don't agree about the value of the Orange Bowl. It's not worth nearly what the Sugar or Rose bowls are worth because the potential field is so much weaker.

Let's look at the past 20 years:

January 1, 1995+ #1 Nebraska 24 #3 Miami (FL) 17 notes
January 1, 1996 #6 Florida State 31 #8 Notre Dame 26 notes
December 31, 1996 #6 Nebraska 41 #10 Virginia Tech 21 notes
January 2, 1998^ #2 Nebraska 42 #3 Tennessee 17 notes
January 2, 1999† #7 Florida 31 #18 Syracuse 10 notes
January 1, 2000 #8 Michigan 35 #5 Alabama 34 notes
January 3, 2001* #1 Oklahoma 13 #3 Florida State 2 notes
January 2, 2002 #5 Florida 56 #6 Maryland 23 notes
January 2, 2003 #5 USC 38 #3 Iowa 17 notes
January 1, 2004 #10 Miami (FL) 16 #9 Florida State 14 notes
January 4, 2005* #1 USC 55‡ #2 Oklahoma 19 notes
January 3, 2006 #3 Penn State 26 #22 Florida State 23 notes
January 2, 2007 #5 Louisville 24 #15 Wake Forest 13 notes
January 3, 2008 #8 Kansas 24 #5 Virginia Tech 21 notes
January 1, 2009 #21 Virginia Tech 20 #12 Cincinnati 7 notes
January 5, 2010 #10 Iowa 24 #9 Georgia Tech 14 notes
January 3, 2011 #5 Stanford 40 #12 Virginia Tech 12 notes
January 4, 2012 #23 West Virginia 70 #14 Clemson 33 notes
January 1, 2013 #13 Florida State 31 #16 Northern Illinois 10 notes
January 3, 2014 #12 Clemson 40 #7 Ohio State 35 notes
December 31, 2014 #10 Georgia Tech 49 #8 Mississippi State 34 notes


The pool for the Orange Bowl starts with the ACC. Clemson, Miami, FSU, UNC, NC State, Louisville, and VT will fill their half of the Orange Bowl. However, Miami, UNC, and NC State have shown no ability to get to the Orange Bowl over the last decade. GT, Duke, WF, and BC have either made the OB or made the ACC championship game in the last decade but all four are very small alumni schools. If every WF, BC, and Duke graduate actually showed up, they would not fill the stadium. In addition to a small alumni base, they don't have huge Wal-Mart fans who are not alums.

When it comes to potential schools in the larger neighborhood of Miami, there are just two - Miami and FSU.

Now look at the other two bowls.

Over the last two decades the Rose has had:

USC-6, Oregon-4, Stanford-3, UCLA-1, WSU-2, ASU-1. USC, Stanford, UCLA, and ASU are practically local schools to the Los Angeles area. That's a big advantage.

Wisky-5, Michigan-4, Ohio State-2, Penn State-2, Illinois, NW, MSU, Purdue-1 each. The B10 schools are all huge with the exception of NW.

The pool for the Sugar Bowl includes Alabama, Auburn, TAMU, Texas, OU, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia - all with huge fan following. The smallest likely interlopers are located in or near the New Orleans neighborhood - Ole Miss, MSU, Baylor, TCU. The proximity of Bama, Texas, TAMU, LSU, to New Orleans is also a plus for the SB.

The value for the OB simply is not there especially when Miami is in the tank and might not come out and when NC State, UNC, and UVa have not shown the ability to be in play for the game.

When it was time to corral the OB, Miami had stunk for nearly a decade, VT had begun to show bowl travel fatigue, and the likelihood of the game getting a small team in anyone year was much greater than the other two games.

Can you imagine the OB gate and ratings disaster of WF against NW and Ole Miss? Think about it - everyone in the OB from the SEC or B10 is there as a consolation prize on the heels of not making the SB or the Playoff. The OB is much greater ratings and attendance risk than the SB or RB.

(04-17-2015 12:13 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 11:01 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:50 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 09:42 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  Before you write off the ACCDN ventures... in 2008 many didn't think the Big 10 network would turn a profit, and before that the SEC Championship Game was met with great skepticism.

I like that the ACC is at the forefront of something. I don't know for sure if it will turn a big profit, but I like this stance rather than the reactionary one the ACC had for so many years.

Huge difference between the BTN and ACCDN: the BTN has rights to broadcast football and basketball games, the ACCDN can only broadcast highlights, pre- and post-game shows, and some Olympic sports.

That's why I doubt the ACCDN, in its current format, will ever command a subscription fee - but it can and does bring in some advertising income.

I'm not in the business so I don't understand the reasoning behind each University having and keeping their own games in-house as opposed to making it available nationally. I won't pay money to subscribe to "WatchDukeTV" to watch a single UofL baseball game, but I would be willing (as long as the price is right) to subscribe to the ACCDN in order to catch multiple away game Olympic sports and events and coaches shows.

It's just sitting there.

The PAC12 is looking in this direction as well I think.

I recently paid $9.95 to watch three ND/Pitt baseball games, then cancelled the subscription to Pitt TV or whatever it was.

So, I will (and have, often) pay money to some other school's subscription plan to watch ND baseball, but won't keep it after that particular series is over.

WatchND is a free subscription program (and iPhone app) in case anyone wants to watch their team play ND.

I am not sure that I would be willing to pay for a conference wide network on a subscription basis. I simply would not watch any non-ND content. Hell, I don't care to watch any coaches shows, even ND ones. The same with "classic games". They are on You Tube, anyway.

I know you don't care but I wonder how many other ND sports played at PITT that month that was on WatchPitt (or whatever?). You didn't pay $3 per baseball game. If done correctly, you may have been able to watch 5 or 6 or more ND games (both men and women) in multiple sports. THAT is how it should be marketed and shared by the conference.

It was $9.99 per month. It was for the weekend of 4/3/15-4/5/15. I only wanted to watch the three baseball games.

I didn't care if ND soccer or volleyball or whatever other sport was involved. I didn't want to watch them.

I had access to Pitt sports for all of April, but didn't care to see any other Pitt sports, even though I grew up 35 miles from Pitt's campus.

I only wanted to watch the three baseball games. Once that series was over, I hit "cancel" and never looked at it again.

No amount of "marketing" would have made any difference.

(04-17-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:13 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 11:01 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:50 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Huge difference between the BTN and ACCDN: the BTN has rights to broadcast football and basketball games, the ACCDN can only broadcast highlights, pre- and post-game shows, and some Olympic sports.

That's why I doubt the ACCDN, in its current format, will ever command a subscription fee - but it can and does bring in some advertising income.

I'm not in the business so I don't understand the reasoning behind each University having and keeping their own games in-house as opposed to making it available nationally. I won't pay money to subscribe to "WatchDukeTV" to watch a single UofL baseball game, but I would be willing (as long as the price is right) to subscribe to the ACCDN in order to catch multiple away game Olympic sports and events and coaches shows.

It's just sitting there.

The PAC12 is looking in this direction as well I think.

I recently paid $9.95 to watch three ND/Pitt baseball games, then cancelled the subscription to Pitt TV or whatever it was.

So, I will (and have, often) pay money to some other school's subscription plan to watch ND baseball, but won't keep it after that particular series is over.

WatchND is a free subscription program (and iPhone app) in case anyone wants to watch their team play ND.

I am not sure that I would be willing to pay for a conference wide network on a subscription basis. I simply would not watch any non-ND content. Hell, I don't care to watch any coaches shows, even ND ones. The same with "classic games". They are on You Tube, anyway.

I know you don't care but I wonder how many other ND sports played at PITT that month that was on WatchPitt (or whatever?). You didn't pay $3 per baseball game. If done correctly, you may have been able to watch 5 or 6 or more ND games (both men and women) in multiple sports. THAT is how it should be marketed and shared by the conference.

It was $9.99 per month. It was for the weekend of 4/3/15-4/5/15. I only wanted to watch the three baseball games.

I didn't care if ND soccer or volleyball or whatever other sport was involved. I didn't want to watch them.

I had access to Pitt sports for all of April, but didn't care to see any other Pitt sports, even though I grew up 35 miles from Pitt's campus.

I only wanted to watch the three baseball games. Once that series was over, I hit "cancel" and never looked at it again.

No amount of "marketing" would have made any difference.

You do know that there are ND fans that don't care about football or baseball right?

(04-17-2015 01:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:13 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 11:01 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 10:50 AM)Dasville Wrote:  I'm not in the business so I don't understand the reasoning behind each University having and keeping their own games in-house as opposed to making it available nationally. I won't pay money to subscribe to "WatchDukeTV" to watch a single UofL baseball game, but I would be willing (as long as the price is right) to subscribe to the ACCDN in order to catch multiple away game Olympic sports and events and coaches shows.

It's just sitting there.

The PAC12 is looking in this direction as well I think.

I recently paid $9.95 to watch three ND/Pitt baseball games, then cancelled the subscription to Pitt TV or whatever it was.

So, I will (and have, often) pay money to some other school's subscription plan to watch ND baseball, but won't keep it after that particular series is over.

WatchND is a free subscription program (and iPhone app) in case anyone wants to watch their team play ND.

I am not sure that I would be willing to pay for a conference wide network on a subscription basis. I simply would not watch any non-ND content. Hell, I don't care to watch any coaches shows, even ND ones. The same with "classic games". They are on You Tube, anyway.

I know you don't care but I wonder how many other ND sports played at PITT that month that was on WatchPitt (or whatever?). You didn't pay $3 per baseball game. If done correctly, you may have been able to watch 5 or 6 or more ND games (both men and women) in multiple sports. THAT is how it should be marketed and shared by the conference.

It was $9.99 per month. It was for the weekend of 4/3/15-4/5/15. I only wanted to watch the three baseball games.

I didn't care if ND soccer or volleyball or whatever other sport was involved. I didn't want to watch them.

I had access to Pitt sports for all of April, but didn't care to see any other Pitt sports, even though I grew up 35 miles from Pitt's campus.

I only wanted to watch the three baseball games. Once that series was over, I hit "cancel" and never looked at it again.

No amount of "marketing" would have made any difference.

You do know that there are ND fans that don't care about football or baseball right?

Yeah, but I don't care about them, either. :)

I am not sure that there are any ND fans that don't like football.

All that I am saying is that an ACC Network would have too much programming on it that I would not care about for me to pay a subscription long term for it.

(04-17-2015 01:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:13 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 11:01 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
I recently paid $9.95 to watch three ND/Pitt baseball games, then cancelled the subscription to Pitt TV or whatever it was.

So, I will (and have, often) pay money to some other school's subscription plan to watch ND baseball, but won't keep it after that particular series is over.

WatchND is a free subscription program (and iPhone app) in case anyone wants to watch their team play ND.

I am not sure that I would be willing to pay for a conference wide network on a subscription basis. I simply would not watch any non-ND content. Hell, I don't care to watch any coaches shows, even ND ones. The same with "classic games". They are on You Tube, anyway.

I know you don't care but I wonder how many other ND sports played at PITT that month that was on WatchPitt (or whatever?). You didn't pay $3 per baseball game. If done correctly, you may have been able to watch 5 or 6 or more ND games (both men and women) in multiple sports. THAT is how it should be marketed and shared by the conference.

It was $9.99 per month. It was for the weekend of 4/3/15-4/5/15. I only wanted to watch the three baseball games.

I didn't care if ND soccer or volleyball or whatever other sport was involved. I didn't want to watch them.

I had access to Pitt sports for all of April, but didn't care to see any other Pitt sports, even though I grew up 35 miles from Pitt's campus.

I only wanted to watch the three baseball games. Once that series was over, I hit "cancel" and never looked at it again.

No amount of "marketing" would have made any difference.

You do know that there are ND fans that don't care about football or baseball right?

Yeah, but I don't care about them, either. :)

I am not sure that there are any ND fans that don't like football.

All that I am saying is that an ACC Network would have too much programming on it that I would not care about for me to pay a subscription long term for it.

And I agree with all that.

Beauty about a Digital Network is........you watch what you want to watch, not just what is on.

(04-17-2015 02:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 12:13 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I know you don't care but I wonder how many other ND sports played at PITT that month that was on WatchPitt (or whatever?). You didn't pay $3 per baseball game. If done correctly, you may have been able to watch 5 or 6 or more ND games (both men and women) in multiple sports. THAT is how it should be marketed and shared by the conference.

It was $9.99 per month. It was for the weekend of 4/3/15-4/5/15. I only wanted to watch the three baseball games.

I didn't care if ND soccer or volleyball or whatever other sport was involved. I didn't want to watch them.

I had access to Pitt sports for all of April, but didn't care to see any other Pitt sports, even though I grew up 35 miles from Pitt's campus.

I only wanted to watch the three baseball games. Once that series was over, I hit "cancel" and never looked at it again.

No amount of "marketing" would have made any difference.

You do know that there are ND fans that don't care about football or baseball right?

Yeah, but I don't care about them, either. :)

I am not sure that there are any ND fans that don't like football.

All that I am saying is that an ACC Network would have too much programming on it that I would not care about for me to pay a subscription long term for it.

And I agree with all that.

Beauty about a Digital Network is........you watch what you want to watch, not just what is on.

But an ACC digital network is not much of an improvement for me.

All ND football games are on NBC or ABC.

All ND home baseball games are free on WatchND. All ND/ACC baseball series (except Pitt) are on WatchESPN/ESPN 3 (I have DirecTV) which I can Chromecast on my TV for no extra charge.

What exactly would I personally be getting with a digital ACC Network subscription that I am not getting now for no extra charge?

(04-17-2015 02:52 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 02:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  It was $9.99 per month. It was for the weekend of 4/3/15-4/5/15. I only wanted to watch the three baseball games.

I didn't care if ND soccer or volleyball or whatever other sport was involved. I didn't want to watch them.

I had access to Pitt sports for all of April, but didn't care to see any other Pitt sports, even though I grew up 35 miles from Pitt's campus.

I only wanted to watch the three baseball games. Once that series was over, I hit "cancel" and never looked at it again.

No amount of "marketing" would have made any difference.

You do know that there are ND fans that don't care about football or baseball right?

Yeah, but I don't care about them, either. :)

I am not sure that there are any ND fans that don't like football.

All that I am saying is that an ACC Network would have too much programming on it that I would not care about for me to pay a subscription long term for it.

And I agree with all that.

Beauty about a Digital Network is........you watch what you want to watch, not just what is on.

But an ACC digital network is not much of an improvement for me.

All ND football games are on NBC or ABC.

All ND home baseball games are free on WatchND. All ND/ACC baseball series (except Pitt) are on WatchESPN/ESPN 3 (I have DirecTV) which I can Chromecast on my TV for no extra charge.

What exactly would I personally be getting with a digital ACC Network subscription that I am not getting now for no extra charge?

I'll get back to you later TerryD, .....

leaving to go watch the UofL vs WF baseball game and then the football spring game.
Can't get these games on TV. It would be great if people out of town could.

ND's spring game tomorrow is on NBC Sports, DirecTV channel 220.

The ND/NC State baseball game is on ESPN 3 tonight and Sunday, Saturday on WatchND.

I think that North Carolina/ND lacrosse is on WatchND as well.

You say you don't need the ACCDN because of WatchND, but if the ACC ever creates a network, won't that cease to exist, at least in its current capacity?

(04-17-2015 10:05 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  You say you don't need the ACCDN because of WatchND, but if the ACC ever creates a network, won't that cease to exist, at least in its current capacity?

WatchND is free. If you are right, then I am not rooting for an ACC Network?

Wouldn't that content HAVE to go onto the ACCN? At least the most "valuable" content.