(12-30-2015 11:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 10:05 AM)nole Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 09:52 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  I think long term, the ACC is in a better position without the network now, IF the league stays stable.

The ACC is in a bad TV deal, and if they extend it by 20 years as part of an ACC Network deal, it is just compounding the position and they'll always be playing catch up.

The ACC will get their best TV deal under the threat of free agency, and with the continued ascension of football.

Now, if the conference can't come up with enough revenue to keep the league from breaking apart before then, then it's all for naught. I'd rather see almost any other possible source of increased revenue than hitching up with ESPN for 20 more years right now.

ACC had a chance for free agency and passed so it could save Raycom (why does the ACCC give a crap?) and Swofford's son.

The big issue is stability. The next 5-10 years, the SEC and B1G will be sniffing around and offering programs like Va Tech (SEC), NC State (SEC), NC (both), VA (both), Ga Tech (B1G) HUGE sums of money and better exposure. The coming revenue gap is going to be a problem.

I agree though, the ACC needs to get away from ESPN. The ACC is simply a conference that is the red headed step child of another conferences TV network. It is bad for business IF you are competing in college football (so many ACC schools don't notice).

No doubt it was misplayed. Can't go back in time though.

But where it stands now, the ACC can't have both a conference network in the near future AND avoid basically a lifetime marriage to ESPN.

Can't have it both ways.

I personally don't think that the ACC is in a great position to be extending a terrible TV deal into the late 2030s.

It's up to the ACC to figure out how to keep some kind of pace with the options on the table, which are few.

I also don't believe, but I don't know, that the ACC Network today would generate enough money to guarantee stability in the face of the B1G and SEC anyway, so my personal view all along is that I'd rather have them roll the dice that they'll be in a better position in 7-10 years if they keep their options open, and forego an extra $2-4m a year in a bad ACC network deal.

Since streaming is becoming a bigger part of future distribution, don't rule out the value of brands when it comes to realignment. Where Clemson and Florida State were not the favored expansion brands for the SEC under the market model, the content value that they have to bring would only multiply the value of any conference with more than a couple of brands. I think they are very viable again for any conference, including the SEC. For the Big 10 it will be the same, AAU, brands (whether football or basketball) and markets. There are a couple of content multipliers out there for them in football and a few in basketball.

So all I'm saying here is that pressure will now come not only upon those whose markets seem valuable to the SEC or Big 10, but also those whose brands would multiply the number of compelling match ups each week. The former extends carriage fees (while they last) but the latter is valuable all day long every day.

IMO the ACC should have been willing to do back-flips to create room for Texas, Oklahoma, and a buddy to go along with pressure to bring N.D. on board full time with that kind of play. Then you would have had the content to have made a market model worthwhile, but certainly the branding to always maximize streaming. The reticence in some quarters of the ACC to pursue those kinds of proposals when they were offered by ESPN is why you are in limbo today.