(08-21-2018 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 12:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 06:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  ...In 2019 The AAC/MWC/BYU will likely be in their last year of any affiliation with ESPN. Why start the ACC network when ESPNU, ESPN news, ESPN classic, ESPN3 and ESPN plus need content? Risky, I say. What say you?

According to new ESPN pres Pitaro, "ESPN... has the rights to 900 college football games this upcoming season" That's something like 60 games per week. What they need are more channels to distribute it all.

That's pretty amazing. If you count all bowl games and CCG's, plus the 100 or so games between FBS and FCS teams, there are roughly 870 FBS games each year. The rights to some of those games are held by other networks, like Fox or NBC.

Does that mean they have the rights to hundreds of FCS vs FCS games?

Probably even have some D2 and D3 rights as well.

(08-20-2018 07:07 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 07:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think they have a contract.

And its still probably more valuable than the alternatives.

Don’t get me wrong, I want the ACCN to start. I not only think it will be a flop, I’m rooting for it’s failure. Win win for me. I’m simply worried that ESPN will change its mind and not start it.

Curious why you want the ACCN to flop? Is it because the AAC gets paid peanuts?

(08-20-2018 06:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  In 2019 ESPN is scheduled to start the ACC network. The cable tv landscape is changing rapidly. The Big10 network has challenges ahead. The PAC network has been an incredible flop. The SEC network already covers the ACC region that BTN doesn’t. The region is a pro sports region. In 2019 The AAC/MWC/BYU will likely be in their last year of any affiliation with ESPN. Why start the ACC network when ESPNU, ESPN news, ESPN classic, ESPN3 and ESPN plus need content? Risky, I say. What say you?

PepsiCo sells Pepsi and Mountain Dew. PepsiCo sells Dortitos and Tostitos. PepsiCo sells Lays and Ruffles potato chips.


This should answer every question you have.



You can charge damn near anything you want for the ACCN in NC, Va, DC, and SC. You can charge a good price in Florida, Georgia, MD, WVa, and KY. You can charge a fair price in Pa, NY, Mass, VT, Maine, Delaware, NH, Connecticut, Indiana, and the DMA's that adjoin and overlap into ACC territory such as Mobile Alabama, Tri-Cities TN, Chicago, Philly side of NJ, etc.


The ACCN has three plays - Basketball, Notre Dame, and Football.
The SECN has one play - Football


25 million people can be charged damn near anything.

50 million people can be charged full price.

55 million people can be charged a discounted price.

200 million can be charged a nominal fee.


For the purposes of illustration only lets say these four tiers I've cited charge $2.00, $1.00, .50 cents, and a dime - that produces:


Now lets divide the population numbers by 4 to create more realistic household numbers and take into account non subcribers to cable or sataliite them multiply by the rate and then 12 months:

6,250,000 x 2 x 12 = $156M
12,500,000 x 1 x 12 = $150 M
13,750,000 x .5 x 12 = $82.5M
50,000,000 x .10 x 12 = $60M

Total $448.5 M

Now give half to ESPN/Disney $224.25 M

Now give half to the ACC $224.25 M


Divide that by 16 shares (15 schools and the office) = @ $14 M


Now lets assume you only get half of what you thought you could get with this model:


ESPN/Disney still gains $112 M

ACC still gains $7 M per school and office


Try to go out and sell ESPN news. The SECN is like repackaging air and selling it to people because you made them think they might lose it and the ACCN is the same. The product is "new and improved".

https://twitter.com/sarafischer/status/1...7690828800


courtesy of Green.

(08-20-2018 07:07 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 07:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think they have a contract.

And its still probably more valuable than the alternatives.

Don’t get me wrong, I want the ACCN to start. I not only think it will be a flop, I’m rooting for it’s failure. Win win for me. I’m simply worried that ESPN will change its mind and not start it.

Is it a win because you are bitter? It's less games competing with the G5, and it indicates that there is still value in collegiate media, a positive for contract negotiations.

(08-21-2018 12:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 06:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  In 2019 ESPN is scheduled to start the ACC network. The cable tv landscape is changing rapidly. The Big10 network has challenges ahead. The PAC network has been an incredible flop. The SEC network already covers the ACC region that BTN doesn’t. The region is a pro sports region. In 2019 The AAC/MWC/BYU will likely be in their last year of any affiliation with ESPN. Why start the ACC network when ESPNU, ESPN news, ESPN classic, ESPN3 and ESPN plus need content? Risky, I say. What say you?

PepsiCo sells Pepsi and Mountain Dew. PepsiCo sells Dortitos and Tostitos. PepsiCo sells Lays and Ruffles potato chips.


This should answer every question you have.



You can charge damn near anything you want for the ACCN in NC, Va, DC, and SC. You can charge a good price in Florida, Georgia, MD, WVa, and KY. You can charge a fair price in Pa, NY, Mass, VT, Maine, Delaware, NH, Connecticut, Indiana, and the DMA's that adjoin and overlap into ACC territory such as Mobile Alabama, Tri-Cities TN, Chicago, Philly side of NJ, etc.


The ACCN has three plays - Basketball, Notre Dame, and Football.
The SECN has one play - Football


25 million people can be charged damn near anything.

50 million people can be charged full price.

55 million people can be charged a discounted price.

200 million can be charged a nominal fee.


For the purposes of illustration only lets say these four tiers I've cited charge $2.00, $1.00, .50 cents, and a dime - that produces:


Now lets divide the population numbers by 4 to create more realistic household numbers and take into account non subcribers to cable or sataliite them multiply by the rate and then 12 months:

6,250,000 x 2 x 12 = $156M
12,500,000 x 1 x 12 = $150 M
13,750,000 x .5 x 12 = $82.5M
50,000,000 x .10 x 12 = $60M

Total $448.5 M

Now give half to ESPN/Disney $224.25 M

Now give half to the ACC $224.25 M


Divide that by 16 shares (15 schools and the office) = @ $14 M


Now lets assume you only get half of what you thought you could get with this model:


ESPN/Disney still gains $112 M

ACC still gains $7 M per school and office


Try to go out and sell ESPN news. The SECN is like repackaging air and selling it to people because you made them think they might lose it and the ACCN is the same. The product is "new and improved".

No way the ACCN gets $2 per subscriber, anywhere. Im almost sure that neither the BIG or SEC gets $2 per sub, anywhere.

(08-21-2018 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 12:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 06:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  ...In 2019 The AAC/MWC/BYU will likely be in their last year of any affiliation with ESPN. Why start the ACC network when ESPNU, ESPN news, ESPN classic, ESPN3 and ESPN plus need content? Risky, I say. What say you?

According to new ESPN pres Pitaro, "ESPN... has the rights to 900 college football games this upcoming season" That's something like 60 games per week. What they need are more channels to distribute it all.

That's pretty amazing. If you count all bowl games and CCG's, plus the 100 or so games between FBS and FCS teams, there are roughly 870 FBS games each year. The rights to some of those games are held by other networks, like Fox or NBC.

Does that mean they have the rights to hundreds of FCS vs FCS games?

GOOD POINT! He MUST be including FCS-vs-FCS games.

(08-21-2018 02:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 12:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 06:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  ...In 2019 The AAC/MWC/BYU will likely be in their last year of any affiliation with ESPN. Why start the ACC network when ESPNU, ESPN news, ESPN classic, ESPN3 and ESPN plus need content? Risky, I say. What say you?

According to new ESPN pres Pitaro, "ESPN... has the rights to 900 college football games this upcoming season" That's something like 60 games per week. What they need are more channels to distribute it all.

That's pretty amazing. If you count all bowl games and CCG's, plus the 100 or so games between FBS and FCS teams, there are roughly 870 FBS games each year. The rights to some of those games are held by other networks, like Fox or NBC.

Does that mean they have the rights to hundreds of FCS vs FCS games?

GOOD POINT! He MUST be including FCS-vs-FCS games.

ESPN's press releases mention "season long coverage" of FCS, including every game of the FCS playoffs.

(08-21-2018 02:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 02:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 12:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 06:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  ...In 2019 The AAC/MWC/BYU will likely be in their last year of any affiliation with ESPN. Why start the ACC network when ESPNU, ESPN news, ESPN classic, ESPN3 and ESPN plus need content? Risky, I say. What say you?

According to new ESPN pres Pitaro, "ESPN... has the rights to 900 college football games this upcoming season" That's something like 60 games per week. What they need are more channels to distribute it all.

That's pretty amazing. If you count all bowl games and CCG's, plus the 100 or so games between FBS and FCS teams, there are roughly 870 FBS games each year. The rights to some of those games are held by other networks, like Fox or NBC.

Does that mean they have the rights to hundreds of FCS vs FCS games?

GOOD POINT! He MUST be including FCS-vs-FCS games.

ESPN's press releases mention "season long coverage" of FCS, including every game of the FCS playoffs.

I'm guessing ESPN + is going to be the go-to place for those games?

Not that I'll ever be getting that 'channel'.

(08-21-2018 01:35 PM)Negative Optimist Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 07:07 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 07:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think they have a contract.

And its still probably more valuable than the alternatives.

Don’t get me wrong, I want the ACCN to start. I not only think it will be a flop, I’m rooting for it’s failure. Win win for me. I’m simply worried that ESPN will change its mind and not start it.

Is it a win because you are bitter? It's less games competing with the G5, and it indicates that there is still value in collegiate media, a positive for contract negotiations.

It’s pointless to explain why I don’t like ESPN or the ACCN to newbies. The other vets on here know why I am bitter. Later newbie.

(08-21-2018 02:10 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 12:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 06:34 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  In 2019 ESPN is scheduled to start the ACC network. The cable tv landscape is changing rapidly. The Big10 network has challenges ahead. The PAC network has been an incredible flop. The SEC network already covers the ACC region that BTN doesn’t. The region is a pro sports region. In 2019 The AAC/MWC/BYU will likely be in their last year of any affiliation with ESPN. Why start the ACC network when ESPNU, ESPN news, ESPN classic, ESPN3 and ESPN plus need content? Risky, I say. What say you?

PepsiCo sells Pepsi and Mountain Dew. PepsiCo sells Dortitos and Tostitos. PepsiCo sells Lays and Ruffles potato chips.


This should answer every question you have.



You can charge damn near anything you want for the ACCN in NC, Va, DC, and SC. You can charge a good price in Florida, Georgia, MD, WVa, and KY. You can charge a fair price in Pa, NY, Mass, VT, Maine, Delaware, NH, Connecticut, Indiana, and the DMA's that adjoin and overlap into ACC territory such as Mobile Alabama, Tri-Cities TN, Chicago, Philly side of NJ, etc.


The ACCN has three plays - Basketball, Notre Dame, and Football.
The SECN has one play - Football


25 million people can be charged damn near anything.

50 million people can be charged full price.

55 million people can be charged a discounted price.

200 million can be charged a nominal fee.


For the purposes of illustration only lets say these four tiers I've cited charge $2.00, $1.00, .50 cents, and a dime - that produces:


Now lets divide the population numbers by 4 to create more realistic household numbers and take into account non subcribers to cable or sataliite them multiply by the rate and then 12 months:

6,250,000 x 2 x 12 = $156M
12,500,000 x 1 x 12 = $150 M
13,750,000 x .5 x 12 = $82.5M
50,000,000 x .10 x 12 = $60M

Total $448.5 M

Now give half to ESPN/Disney $224.25 M

Now give half to the ACC $224.25 M


Divide that by 16 shares (15 schools and the office) = @ $14 M


Now lets assume you only get half of what you thought you could get with this model:


ESPN/Disney still gains $112 M

ACC still gains $7 M per school and office


Try to go out and sell ESPN news. The SECN is like repackaging air and selling it to people because you made them think they might lose it and the ACCN is the same. The product is "new and improved".

No way the ACCN gets $2 per subscriber, anywhere. Im almost sure that neither the BIG or SEC gets $2 per sub, anywhere.

The Big 10 gets 90 cents to a $1 for their top rate depending upon the carrier for their in footprint rate. The SEC gets $1.30 to #1.40 in footprint depending upon the carrier (both of these according to an article about SNL Kagan's valuation of the SEC network and an article by Kagan about the BTN) and 25 cents out of footprint.

Nobody in college sports gets a $1.50 let alone $2.00.

The average carriage rates (in footprint & out of footprint) for the SEC is .74 cents per subscription, 48 cents for the Big 10, and 11 cents for the PAC.

(08-21-2018 09:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The success of the SEC Network has been a bright spot for ESPN in recent years when the growth of its profit margins has otherwise flattened due to subscriber losses and increasing rights fees. ESPN clearly wants to duplicate that success with the ACC Network and has the benefit of experience in successfully launching the SEC Network.

The problem with this is that the Longhorns network was a failure. With the ACC network is that it could be a big flop when over half of the schools do get less viewers while several G5 schools and North Dakota State gets more viewers. You need to look at why those schools not in a P5 conference keep getting more viewers? The viewers want quality of games, not quantity of tv markets. That hurt C-USA a bit.

(08-21-2018 04:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 09:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The success of the SEC Network has been a bright spot for ESPN in recent years when the growth of its profit margins has otherwise flattened due to subscriber losses and increasing rights fees. ESPN clearly wants to duplicate that success with the ACC Network and has the benefit of experience in successfully launching the SEC Network.

The problem with this is that the Longhorns network was a failure. With the ACC network is that it could be a big flop when over half of the schools do get less viewers while several G5 schools and North Dakota State gets more viewers. You need to look at why those schools not in a P5 conference keep getting more viewers? The viewers want quality of games, not quantity of tv markets. That hurt C-USA a bit.

Hmmm, No.

What ACC schools get less ratings? You said over half...so list 8 schools

(08-21-2018 06:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 04:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 09:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The success of the SEC Network has been a bright spot for ESPN in recent years when the growth of its profit margins has otherwise flattened due to subscriber losses and increasing rights fees. ESPN clearly wants to duplicate that success with the ACC Network and has the benefit of experience in successfully launching the SEC Network.

The problem with this is that the Longhorns network was a failure. With the ACC network is that it could be a big flop when over half of the schools do get less viewers while several G5 schools and North Dakota State gets more viewers. You need to look at why those schools not in a P5 conference keep getting more viewers? The viewers want quality of games, not quantity of tv markets. That hurt C-USA a bit.

Hmmm, No.

What ACC schools get less ratings? You said over half...so list 8 schools

Miami at some games below 500,000.
Duke football
Wake Forest
Virginia
Pittsburgh
Boston College
Syracuse at times.
Georgia Tech at times.

Only UNc, Clemson and Florida State are the crown jewels of the conference.

(08-21-2018 07:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 06:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 04:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 09:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The success of the SEC Network has been a bright spot for ESPN in recent years when the growth of its profit margins has otherwise flattened due to subscriber losses and increasing rights fees. ESPN clearly wants to duplicate that success with the ACC Network and has the benefit of experience in successfully launching the SEC Network.

The problem with this is that the Longhorns network was a failure. With the ACC network is that it could be a big flop when over half of the schools do get less viewers while several G5 schools and North Dakota State gets more viewers. You need to look at why those schools not in a P5 conference keep getting more viewers? The viewers want quality of games, not quantity of tv markets. That hurt C-USA a bit.

Hmmm, No.

What ACC schools get less ratings? You said over half...so list 8 schools

Miami at some games below 500,000.
Duke football
Wake Forest
Virginia
Pittsburgh
Boston College
Syracuse at times.
Georgia Tech at times.

Only UNc, Clemson and Florida State are the crown jewels of the conference.

And you listed three schools that sometimes have games less than 500,000. Are you telling me the top G5 schools and NDSU exceed that? They always draw more?

Now with a network...it isn't just about football. So you have totally discounted basketball, lacrosse, and other sports. You realize that is a huge part of a network?

(08-21-2018 07:55 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 07:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 06:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 04:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 09:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The success of the SEC Network has been a bright spot for ESPN in recent years when the growth of its profit margins has otherwise flattened due to subscriber losses and increasing rights fees. ESPN clearly wants to duplicate that success with the ACC Network and has the benefit of experience in successfully launching the SEC Network.

The problem with this is that the Longhorns network was a failure. With the ACC network is that it could be a big flop when over half of the schools do get less viewers while several G5 schools and North Dakota State gets more viewers. You need to look at why those schools not in a P5 conference keep getting more viewers? The viewers want quality of games, not quantity of tv markets. That hurt C-USA a bit.

Hmmm, No.

What ACC schools get less ratings? You said over half...so list 8 schools

Miami at some games below 500,000.
Duke football
Wake Forest
Virginia
Pittsburgh
Boston College
Syracuse at times.
Georgia Tech at times.

Only UNc, Clemson and Florida State are the crown jewels of the conference.

And you listed three schools that sometimes have games less than 500,000. Are you telling me the top G5 schools and NDSU exceed that? They always draw more?

Now with a network...it isn't just about football. So you have totally discounted basketball, lacrosse, and other sports. You realize that is a huge part of a network?

LAX and other sports besides baseball do not make money.

(08-21-2018 08:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 07:55 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 07:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 06:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 04:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem with this is that the Longhorns network was a failure. With the ACC network is that it could be a big flop when over half of the schools do get less viewers while several G5 schools and North Dakota State gets more viewers. You need to look at why those schools not in a P5 conference keep getting more viewers? The viewers want quality of games, not quantity of tv markets. That hurt C-USA a bit.

Hmmm, No.

What ACC schools get less ratings? You said over half...so list 8 schools

Miami at some games below 500,000.
Duke football
Wake Forest
Virginia
Pittsburgh
Boston College
Syracuse at times.
Georgia Tech at times.

Only UNc, Clemson and Florida State are the crown jewels of the conference.

And you listed three schools that sometimes have games less than 500,000. Are you telling me the top G5 schools and NDSU exceed that? They always draw more?

Now with a network...it isn't just about football. So you have totally discounted basketball, lacrosse, and other sports. You realize that is a huge part of a network?

LAX and other sports besides baseball do not make money.

Basketball? You glossed over that...

The ACC is pretty good in baseball too.

With a network you need to fill programming 365 days a year.

Now getting back to your initial claim... The top G5 schools and FCS power NDSU do not draw better ratings than 8 of the ACC schools.

(08-21-2018 04:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 09:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The success of the SEC Network has been a bright spot for ESPN in recent years when the growth of its profit margins has otherwise flattened due to subscriber losses and increasing rights fees. ESPN clearly wants to duplicate that success with the ACC Network and has the benefit of experience in successfully launching the SEC Network.

The problem with this is that the Longhorns network was a failure. With the ACC network is that it could be a big flop when over half of the schools do get less viewers while several G5 schools and North Dakota State gets more viewers. You need to look at why those schools not in a P5 conference keep getting more viewers? The viewers want quality of games, not quantity of tv markets. That hurt C-USA a bit.

The key is not viewership. In the short term, it is about cable, satellite and other carriers' willingness to add the channel to their packages at a rate that ESPN wants. This depends more on games being "must see" for fans of teams with large enough fan bases. The Longhorn Network has been a failure due to the lack of programming - 2 football games and 6 +/- basketball games has simply been inadequate to support the willingness of carriers to take the channel. On the other hand, the BTN and SECN have been successful. While the ACC's football programming is likely to be less appealing generally to carriers than that of the SEC and B1G, it's basketball content will be outstanding, and that will play a big role in getting carriage to the extent their successful in doing so.

JR - I think the ACCN could get more than $2.00 in North Carolina because it's the only market that is so saturated with conference schools in and around the media markets between UNC, NC State, Duke, WF, Clemson, VT, and UVa it would be a high demand thing, especially in basketball season. Put another way, how much do you think the SECN could gouge the State of Alabama for considering the proximity of TN, UGa, UF, Ole Miss, and MSU in addition to Bama and Auburn?

(08-22-2018 05:42 PM)Statefan Wrote:  JR - I think the ACCN could get more than $2.00 in North Carolina because it's the only market that is so saturated with conference schools in and around the media markets between UNC, NC State, Duke, WF, Clemson, VT, and UVa it would be a high demand thing, especially in basketball season. Put another way, how much do you think the SECN could gouge the State of Alabama for considering the proximity of TN, UGa, UF, Ole Miss, and MSU in addition to Bama and Auburn?

$2.00? Hahaha. I’ll bet .50 if the PAC gets .11.

The big Duke vs UNC basketball game ain’t gonna be shown on ACCN!!!