https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...media.aspx

(12-24-2018 08:05 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...media.aspx

Where college sports are concerned I think he's pretty spot on, especially with regard to the attitudes of college presidents.

College sports-related predictions:

Quote:CBS will sign a long-term extension with the SEC.
...CBS knows its deal for an SEC game of the week is a bargain... I expect them to open the rights deal early and sign a long-term extension.

Interesting take.

Quote:The College Football Playoff will not expand.

BUMMER

Quote:The ACC Network launch will be considered a modified success.
The ACC Network’s launch will look more like that of the Big Ten Network — which endured a couple of years of brutal carriage fights — than the launch of the SEC Network — which nearly had full distribution from the start. ESPN already has a negotiating blueprint thanks to its Altice deal. Plus, you won’t find a better distribution executive than Justin Connolly, who was behind the SEC Network’s launch. It won’t be an unqualified success, but it will be good enough to keep schools happy.

Sounds about right.

Quote:The American Athletic Conference will renew its ESPN deal.
...Expect rights fee to settle in the $8 million per school range — up from its current $2 million...

Sounds about right - and good for the AAC, well-deserved!

Quote:The Mountain West Conference will sign with Facebook.
...expect the Mountain West to sign deals with ESPN for a handful of games and Facebook for the rest.

Weird.

Quote:Gambling companies will try to buy media rights.

Media companies will acquire gambling sites.

NOTE: I don't much like where these last 2 are going.

I agree, somehow I have a feeling some in the AAC will still gripe about 8 million. I know for the ACC network, I will be thrilled if the ACC network meets his expectations. If it can bring in additional 5-10 million per school, I think that makes it a success in my mind.

(12-25-2018 06:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I agree, somehow I have a feeling some in the AAC will still gripe about 8 million. I know for the ACC network, I will be thrilled if the ACC network meets his expectations. If it can bring in additional 5-10 million per school, I think that makes it a success in my mind.

For the first two years I'd look in the 3-5 range per school. By year three 7 million isn't out of the question. The top end if/when carriage picks up will be in the 10 million range but you won't open with that.

(12-25-2018 06:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I agree, somehow I have a feeling some in the AAC will still gripe about 8 million. I know for the ACC network, I will be thrilled if the ACC network meets his expectations. If it can bring in additional 5-10 million per school, I think that makes it a success in my mind.

Probably---but I haven't been one of the guys predicting 15 million a team. This number is in the high end of the 6-8 million per team range Ive been predicting for some time based on recent contracts given to sports properties with similar ratings.

(12-24-2018 10:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Quote:The ACC Network launch will be considered a modified success.
The ACC Network’s launch will look more like that of the Big Ten Network — which endured a couple of years of brutal carriage fights — than the launch of the SEC Network — which nearly had full distribution from the start. ESPN already has a negotiating blueprint thanks to its Altice deal. Plus, you won’t find a better distribution executive than Justin Connolly, who was behind the SEC Network’s launch. It won’t be an unqualified success, but it will be good enough to keep schools happy.

Sounds about right.

If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Quote:The ACC Network launch will be considered a modified success.
The ACC Network’s launch will look more like that of the Big Ten Network — which endured a couple of years of brutal carriage fights — than the launch of the SEC Network — which nearly had full distribution from the start. ESPN already has a negotiating blueprint thanks to its Altice deal. Plus, you won’t find a better distribution executive than Justin Connolly, who was behind the SEC Network’s launch. It won’t be an unqualified success, but it will be good enough to keep schools happy.

Sounds about right.

If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

The flaw in the logic of thinking that the ACCN will make up the gap between the ACC and SEC/B1G is that the SEC (at least by 2023 if not sooner) should see a boost in T1 revenue conservatively estimated at 7 million per school and liberally estimated at 10-11 million from their current undervalued T1 rights when it is renewed. That equals the low and high estimates for the ACCN.

The question is whether or not you will make up ground on the Big 10. They renew their T1 and T2 at roughly the same time as the SEC. All they have to do to keep the lead in TV revenue is to get boost of between 3-5 million per school. Currently they are roughly 5 million ahead of the SEC for the projected earnings this year. So let's say given the economy that everyone's low ball estimates come about. The Big 10 might see a bump of 3 million for each school in 2023-4. That takes them to 53 million. If the SEC T1 nets 7 million (a catch up from a nearly 20 year old contract) but on the low end of expectations that puts the SEC at 53 from 46 million. So if the ACCN within 3 years hits the 5 millon mark you'll jump the PAC and be within spitting distance of the Big 12 but you would only be in the high 30's to very low 40's in T.V. revenue.

So from my vantage point I suspect that by 2024 that things will have stayed pretty much the same depending upon whether the PAC improves their overall standing with regard to TV revenue.

But we'll see. Alston could still be the biggest catalyst for change we've seen.

Here is my take on this.

ACC: There are schools in that conference do terrible in tv ratings that are even worst that some C-USA, SBC, MAC and even some FCS schools. They are usually schools that are not UNC, Clemson of Florida State.

AAC: There are a couple of schools there only deserves like $500K instead of $8 million.More than half of the MWC are in the $8 million dollar range, a couple of C-USA, MAC and SBC plus James Madison, North Dakota State and Eastern Washington are close to that range in value.

MWC: Their games deserve to have equal rights to be on ESPN as AAC. They are more competitive to each other and have some great games.

The ACC Network will fail. After the Longhorn Network fiasco? Cable companies will start to refuse to carry another network. Look where the PAC 12 is at? The reason is that the cable companies will start to fight back to keep subscribers. Adding another conference network to raise cable fees would hurt the cable companies. Some smaller cable companies already went bye bye because they were forced to take the Longhorn Network, and they did not have the subscribers to cover the cost of that Network as well. Some of these cable companies happened to be in Oklahoma and had less than 200,000 costumers.

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Quote:The ACC Network launch will be considered a modified success.
The ACC Network’s launch will look more like that of the Big Ten Network — which endured a couple of years of brutal carriage fights — than the launch of the SEC Network — which nearly had full distribution from the start. ESPN already has a negotiating blueprint thanks to its Altice deal. Plus, you won’t find a better distribution executive than Justin Connolly, who was behind the SEC Network’s launch. It won’t be an unqualified success, but it will be good enough to keep schools happy.

Sounds about right.

If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

(12-26-2018 06:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Here is my take on this.

ACC: There are schools in that conference do terrible in tv ratings that are even worst that some C-USA, SBC, MAC and even some FCS schools...

Most years, sure - there's at least one or two ACC teams which average fewer TV viewers in their non-marquee games than the best of those other conferences... but then, that's also true of the bottom one or two teams in the Big Ten, SEC, Big XII and Pac-12 also. Totally cherry-picking data.

(12-26-2018 06:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  AAC: There are a couple of schools there only deserves like $500K instead of $8 million. More than half of the MWC are in the $8 million dollar range, a couple of C-USA, MAC and SBC plus James Madison, North Dakota State and Eastern Washington are close to that range in value.

MWC: Their games deserve to have equal rights to be on ESPN as AAC. They are more competitive to each other and have some great games.

You completely lost all credibility when you made the statement in italics. A more accurate statement: there may be one or two MWC teams in the $8 million range... if you could move those teams to a better conference in particular. There just are that many fans of the MWC teams - even if they ALL watched the games.

(12-26-2018 06:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The ACC Network will fail. After the Longhorn Network fiasco? Cable companies will start to refuse to carry another network. Look where the PAC 12 is at? The reason is that the cable companies will start to fight back to keep subscribers. Adding another conference network to raise cable fees would hurt the cable companies. Some smaller cable companies already went bye bye because they were forced to take the Longhorn Network, and they did not have the subscribers to cover the cost of that Network as well. Some of these cable companies happened to be in Oklahoma and had less than 200,000 costumers.

Straw man - the ACC Network will be nothing like the Longhorn Network.
* 41 football games vs. 2
* 15 featured schools vs. 1.
* 104 million people in footprint vs. 27 million

Just a hunch on my part, but the ACC network viewership will be based more on basketball than football. Don't get me wrong, Football is the money making king. However, ACC basketball fans are more likely to want the ACC network than football fans. I can see Duke vs UNC move to the ACC network in Basketball for at least one game. With multiple top 25 basketball games moved to the ACC network. One thing, ESPN has as much interest in the ACC network working as the ACC. I am not expecting SEC Network money but I be happy with money moving the ACC past the B12 and PAC 12

(12-26-2018 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Just a hunch on my part, but the ACC network viewership will be based more on basketball than football. Don't get me wrong, Football is the money making king. However, ACC basketball fans are more likely to want the ACC network than football fans. I can see Duke vs UNC move to the ACC network in Basketball for at least one game. With multiple top 25 basketball games moved to the ACC network. One thing, ESPN has as much interest in the ACC network working as the ACC. I am not expecting SEC Network money but I be happy with money moving the ACC past the B12 and PAC 12

I suspect the network will end up doing better than the Pac-12 Network, but not as well as the SEC and Big10 networks. That would make it perfectly viable and a reasonably solid success. Its going to make most of its money in the eastern and central time zones---where the most of the US population lives. Thats why it almost cant help but do better than the Pac12 Network.

(12-26-2018 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Just a hunch on my part, but the ACC network viewership will be based more on basketball than football. Don't get me wrong, Football is the money making king. However, ACC basketball fans are more likely to want the ACC network than football fans. I can see Duke vs UNC move to the ACC network in Basketball for at least one game. With multiple top 25 basketball games moved to the ACC network. One thing, ESPN has as much interest in the ACC network working as the ACC. I am not expecting SEC Network money but I be happy with money moving the ACC past the B12 and PAC 12

You are correct. The ACC network has three legs -

ACC Basketball
ACC Football
Notre Dame Sports

People predicting "failure" are silly.

(12-26-2018 02:42 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Just a hunch on my part, but the ACC network viewership will be based more on basketball than football. Don't get me wrong, Football is the money making king. However, ACC basketball fans are more likely to want the ACC network than football fans. I can see Duke vs UNC move to the ACC network in Basketball for at least one game. With multiple top 25 basketball games moved to the ACC network. One thing, ESPN has as much interest in the ACC network working as the ACC. I am not expecting SEC Network money but I be happy with money moving the ACC past the B12 and PAC 12

You are correct. The ACC network has three legs -

ACC Basketball
ACC Football
Notre Dame Sports

People predicting "failure" are silly.

I don't think many are predicting failure at all. I know I'm not. But looking at the highs and lows as potential versus the stated hope that the network will "close the GAP" with the SEC and Big 10 revenues, I just don't see it. The same market forces that could low ball the SEC and Big 10's contract renewals will be present upon the ACCN, especially where carriage is concerned.

I think the ACCN will eventually deliver between 7 to 10 million by the 3rd year for the lower number and by the 5th year for the larger one. That's a success in that the money adds up. But as a catch up to the Big 10 or SEC I don't see it making up the GAP. I think the Big 10's whose GAP has opened wider, and the SEC with a grossly undervalued CBS contract which conservative network estimates have indicated a possible 7 million bump per school for the new T1 deal, even coupled with a poor market economy will see bumps of 3 to 7 million respectively. That means if the ACCN pulls in 7 million they will have gained nothing on the SEC, and only recouped the 5 million dollar bulge that the Big 10 picked up via their last contract plus the 3 million bump I expect they'll get when the 2023 contract is up.

My point therefore is that a successful ACCN will not make up the GAP at all but rather keep the GAP from growing.

(12-26-2018 06:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Here is my take on this.

ACC: There are schools in that conference do terrible in tv ratings that are even worst that some C-USA, SBC, MAC and even some FCS schools. They are usually schools that are not UNC, Clemson of Florida State.

AAC: There are a couple of schools there only deserves like $500K instead of $8 million.More than half of the MWC are in the $8 million dollar range, a couple of C-USA, MAC and SBC plus James Madison, North Dakota State and Eastern Washington are close to that range in value.

MWC: Their games deserve to have equal rights to be on ESPN as AAC. They are more competitive to each other and have some great games.

The ACC Network will fail. After the Longhorn Network fiasco? Cable companies will start to refuse to carry another network. Look where the PAC 12 is at? The reason is that the cable companies will start to fight back to keep subscribers. Adding another conference network to raise cable fees would hurt the cable companies. Some smaller cable companies already went bye bye because they were forced to take the Longhorn Network, and they did not have the subscribers to cover the cost of that Network as well. Some of these cable companies happened to be in Oklahoma and had less than 200,000 costumers.

As far as the ratings, you believe this? Really? Explain yourself first. I can't believe the ratings of the MWC rank with the AAC.

Must be trollin'

I don't think the MW will sign with Facebook. Facebook is losing users and is having some issues with the subscribers.

Stadium, yes. MW Digital Network (on Stadium platform as it is currently), yes.

Not sure about BSU and ESPN. Cord cutting has dropped way below the threshold of 95 million homes for the bonus of the terms.

I know we will do something different as we always have done.

(12-26-2018 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Quote:The ACC Network launch will be considered a modified success.
The ACC Network’s launch will look more like that of the Big Ten Network — which endured a couple of years of brutal carriage fights — than the launch of the SEC Network — which nearly had full distribution from the start. ESPN already has a negotiating blueprint thanks to its Altice deal. Plus, you won’t find a better distribution executive than Justin Connolly, who was behind the SEC Network’s launch. It won’t be an unqualified success, but it will be good enough to keep schools happy.

Sounds about right.

If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

Would Wake even survive in that scenario? That would probably be dependent upon whether Clemson stayed or went. If Clemson left I doubt the remaining members would vote to keep Wake around since with BOTH football powerhouses gone they couldn't afford the perception of the two perceived albatrosses in football (Duke and Wake) hanging around the new league's necks. One could stay but unlikely both. Duke with its extreme value as a basketball power would win out over Wake which just doesn't have that kind of cache. Besides, I have always said in the modern era of college athletics the state of North Carolina simply does not warrant more than two teams in a single conference.

The FSU/Clemson-less remnants would likely add WVU, UCF, and Cincy to get to 12 all of whom would add equal value to the departing UNC, GT, and Wake while ND would remain indy for football with a modified scheduling arrangement with the new conference of 4 games a year but with no contractual stipulation of ever having to join the conference in the future. After all the new league would be far below the Irish's standards. But the new 12 team league would have perfect geographical balance and sensible rivalries in Pitt-WVU, SU-BC, VT-UVA, NCST-Duke, UL-UC, and Miami-UCF.

ESPN might even try to convince the league to consider a partial hybrid conference of 12/4 and get Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John's from the Big East so the basketball tournament could be played annually at MSG instead of having it rotated in order to get boring Greensboro in as part of the rotation.

And if that were successful, they might even want the league to sue and get the Big East name for the conference if that happened since why bother calling the conference the ACC when only three original members remain while eight are former Big East members. It's not as though the ACC EVER thought BIG anyway, might be best to disassociate from that loser name.

You know, I am actually starting to like this post-apocalyptic scenario. Let's face it - the true losses would be FSU and Clemson anyway. So what does the rest matter?

All in good fun, X-Lance.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-26-2018 11:23 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 09:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Quote:The ACC Network launch will be considered a modified success.
The ACC Network’s launch will look more like that of the Big Ten Network — which endured a couple of years of brutal carriage fights — than the launch of the SEC Network — which nearly had full distribution from the start. ESPN already has a negotiating blueprint thanks to its Altice deal. Plus, you won’t find a better distribution executive than Justin Connolly, who was behind the SEC Network’s launch. It won’t be an unqualified success, but it will be good enough to keep schools happy.

Sounds about right.

If this comes to pass it'll be yet another ACCBBS fantasy that went down in flames. That the reason for the delay was to ensure that they were able to negotiate all of their carriage rates. Kind of hard for that to be true if we are going to have to endure a couple years of "brutal carriage fights".

The success or failure of the ACC Network is what it has always been: does it help close the massive revenue gap between us and the SEC/Big 10.

If the ACCN fails to generate enough revenue to satisfy Carolina or Florida State, then JR may get really happy.
The SEC would finally reel in the 'noles and would make another run at Texas. If ESPN thinks the 'Horns need to move west, the SEC might double up in South Carolina (big risk even with Clemson's content factor).
Carolina, which has now reached the top 5 in research, will with Georgia Tech in tow, will trot off to the B1G for a huge payday.
Whats left of the ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Miami, Louisville will pick up Notre Dame as a full member along with West Virginia to remain a 12 team league.

Would Wake even survive in that scenario? That would probably be dependent upon whether Clemson stayed or went. If Clemson left I doubt the remaining members would vote to keep Wake around since with BOTH football powerhouses gone they couldn't afford the perception of the two perceived albatrosses in football (Duke and Wake) hanging around the new league's necks. One could stay but unlikely both. Duke with its extreme value as a basketball power would win out over Wake which just doesn't have that kind of cache. Besides, I have always said in the modern era of college athletics the state of North Carolina simply does not warrant more than two teams in a single conference.

The FSU/Clemson-less remnants would likely add WVU, UCF, and Cincy to get to 12 all of whom would add equal value to the departing UNC, GT, and Wake while ND would remain indy for football with a modified scheduling arrangement with the new conference of 4 games a year but with no contractual stipulation of ever having to join the conference in the future. After all the new league would be far below the Irish's standards. But the new 12 team league would have perfect geographical balance and sensible rivalries in Pitt-WVU, SU-BC, VT-UVA, NCST-Duke, UL-UC, and Miami-UCF.

ESPN might even try to convince the league to consider a partial hybrid conference of 12/4 and get Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John's from the Big East so the basketball tournament could be played annually at MSG instead of having it rotated in order to get boring Greensboro in as part of the rotation.

And if that were successful, they might even want the league to sue and get the Big East name for the conference if that happened since why bother calling the conference the ACC when only three original members remain while eight are former Big East members. It's not as though the ACC EVER thought BIG anyway, might be best to disassociate from that loser name.

You know, I am actually starting to like this post-apocalyptic scenario. Let's face it - the true losses would be FSU and Clemson anyway. So what does the rest matter?

All in good fun, X-Lance.

Cheers,
Neil

If North Carolina becomes available to the Big 10 I would think they would add more than two and the SEC would as well. Virginia Tech would become an SEC prospect and possibly Duke/or N.C. State if the Big 10 didn't go after them.

It's hard to say what the mix would be but if N.D. still said "Nyet" to the Big 10 then 'Cuse, UNC, UVa, and Ga Tech might be appealing to them from a market and split political influence perspective.

Texas or Oklahoma from the West along with F.S.U. and Clemson (from a branding perspective) and perhaps a North Carolina or Virginia school would do it for us. We may not even look further West in that scenario.

I think the ACCN will yield 7 to 10 million within 5 or 6 years of startup. I just don't think that will close the gap with the SEC or Big 10 who also will be getting further boosts.

I imagine Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke are a package deal. Georgia Tech may be in there, too.