(03-12-2019 08:11 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 04:51 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 02:45 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:32 PM)TopperCard Wrote:  That seems to be a big deal

It is a big deal. The biggest in fact.

Nothing's over until it's over, but this pretty much the nail in the coffin for anyone hoping/predicting an ACCN failure as far as rollout and carriage goes. Yes, Comcast and others are still on the clock, and that matters, but DirectTV is the big one.

It's essential to get DirectTV (as the PAC has found out), because DirectTV is a competitor everywhere. It's nice to have the Verizon and Altice deals in your pocket when you go to Comcast, but at the end of the day, if Comcast plays hardball, nobody in Comcast's footprint can threaten to jump to Verizon.

DirectTV, and to a lesser extent Hulu and Vue, changes that completely. Now ACC fans in any remaining service's footprint can threaten to jump to DirectTV (or Hulu or Vue). Totally changes the position. It's really hard to imagine any way that Comcast or ATT will really hold out, with so many deals established, and alternatives for their customers.

Dish might be different I suppose, if they're differentiating with DirectTV on price, but I expect they'll fall in.

This is nothing but good news for the ACC & the ACCN. As to whether it is a home run or a nice double will be in the rate that was negotiated. But either way it's huge!

Yep, just have to wait and see.

The most positive way to look at it though is that all the vague projections have been more bullish than what one would expect...a lot of talk about "closing the gap" and "competitive with the B1G and SEC." But they've always been framed as "potentially" depending on how successful it is.

Now, I'm not sure how to read that. Not many thoughtful analysts really consider that there is potential in the ACC Net to put the ACC in B1G/SEC territory. So what does that mean?

1) Overall revenue parity? No, nobody could mean this, that would mean making so much that you're overcoming 25k+ fewer fans in seats, booster donations, better bowl payouts, etc. That's ridiculous, nobody could think that.

2) Media revenue parity? The B1G and SEC are making so much more from Tier 1/Tier 2 and championship game rights, this seems nearly as absurd. I suppose the most rainbow and unicorn speculation would be that in the new deal ESPN increased their Tier 1/2 revenue to close to the SEC/B1G, got almost as much per household as the SEC/B1G, and then the larger footprint brings media up to near parity. Ratings would make that sound silly, along with the fact that the ACC had absolutely no leverage for that kind of deal. Had the ACC been a free agent and made that deal in a competitive environment, I could buy it, but no way the ACC had that kind of leverage for a raise when they were already beholden to ESPN.

3) Conference network parity? This is the most optimistic realistic view of such claims. There's a scenario I suppose where ESPN got closer than we would expect to the per household money of the B1G and SEC, and along with the slightly bigger footprint, the conference network revenue becomes similar. The thing that makes this not absurd, if still unlikely, is that unlike point 2, at least the ACC and ESPN would be aligned on this. If ESPN thought they could do this, they most definitely would. Do they legit have that kind of clout in the current environment? Seems unlikely.

4) The conference spokespeople, ADs, etc are just talking out their butt and don't really know what the differences in conference disbursement are actually like, and are comparing like ACC 2021 projections to B1G and SEC reported disbursements from 2017 or something, as if those aren't going to grow.

But anyway, let's say that we take all those comments in the most generous (realistic) light...that they aren't just nonsense, and somehow "if successful" it's going to put the ACC somewhere between points 2 and 3...what I would call "Not equal, but a very meaningful cut into the gap." I don't know...something like 85%+ of those conferences?

Let's say that was true...it then begs the question...what is "if successful". The measure of conference networks has always been carriage and households. I think it's safe to assume at this point that carriage is going very well, and the ACCN is likely to have full carriage at launch, which was always the plan. I've always thought about the "if successful" that way.

What other measures could there be? Advertising rates? Viewer number accelerators?

Now that the the carriage seems like it's coming together, it's going to be very interesting to see how "successful" and "competitive with the B1G and SEC" end up being defined. For all the faults I have with the ACC, the one thing they aren't known for is being off message, leaking nonsense, or making fanciful claims. If anything they sandbag. And yet they've kind of put the bar out there to compare to the SEC and B1G, when they could have talked a more conservative game about "securing themselves solidly in the middle class of conference disbursements" and passing the PAC and B12 (what I consider the best realistic outcome), but they didn't message that way.

Really curious how this shakes out.

I don’t want to waste my time responding to all this absurd negativity. I’ll just respond to a couple of points.

You think that ACC schools can’t compete with schools that have football stadiums that have 25,000 more seats. OK, let’s multiply 25,000 seats by $100 times seven home games. Less than $2 million a year and I’m giving the absolute best case. Doesn’t sound overwhelming to me. With decreasing football attendance everywhere, I’m beginning to wonder whether bigger stadiums may end up standing empty most of the time.

You think schools in other conferences get a lot more money from boosters. Sure, WFU isn’t getting much out of alums but I guarantee that Duke, UNC, Notre Dame and U.Va, at the least, get big bucks out of alumni. The word on the street is that the minimum cumulative contribution at Duke to get tickets downstairs for this year’s ACC tournament is $1 million. How much money are Arkansas and Vandy getting out of their alumni? Probably nothing like that.

From what I’ve seen bigger athletic department budgets lead to bloated staffs and bloated salaries for administrators more than improved competitiveness.