(06-02-2019 05:47 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 11:05 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 01:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 12:16 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well let's see. The average rate for the SEC (in footprint and out combined) is .74 cents per subscription. The average rate for the Big 10 (in footprint and out combined) is .49 cents. The average rate for the PAC (in footprint and out combined) is .11 cents. The SEC draws more viewers than anyone. The SEC has the highest % of actual viewers vs potential viewers within its own footprint than any other conference and the SEC makes about 8 million off of the SECN. The ACC is tied with the PAC for the fewest number of actual viewers vs potential viewers and is 5th nationally in viewership. So you tell me what kind of rate the ACC is going to get!

With ESPN's help and bundled with the SECN in a package, I expect the ACC to do much better than the PAC because the PAC has nobody pushing their carriage. They love totally owning their product. The ad thing is that 100% of little is still only a little. I think if the ACCN gets an average .35 cents they should be ecstatic. I also think .25 cents is possible. Based on your numbers anything more than .35 cents is a gift.

If fb was all the ACC had to offer then I might agree. But the ACC has 4 of the 10 Ten winning-est programs of all times in bb. Basketball is going to be the ace in the hole for the ACC with programs like Virginia and Notre Dame engaging viewers. I think the ACC does much better than .35 cents and much closer to the SEC. That along with ESPN having the experience getting the SECN on to cable systems and having the hindsight of do's and dont's, with that whole experience will help the ACCN surprise a bunch of folks.

It doesn't matter what you think they deserve or even what I think they deserve, what matters are the ratings and ad revenue and 80% of that is football and it's the consumer that sets those priorities. If you have a large market share it will pay. But nothing from the numbers indicates that to be the case. No doubt that the ACC will carry the Mid-Atlantic and New England markets for hoops but those are regional numbers. You are going to need a strong draw nationally in football to keep pace with the SEC and your numbers just aren't there.

As far as do and don't goes there aren't many. ESPN handles the carriage set ups and the overhead is to standardize production facilities so any of their personnel can operate them and so equipment coordinates between the school and network.

I've said that I feel you guys can make between 5 to 8 million in 4 or 5 years time. But you'll likely start around 3 million per school just like the Big 10 and SEC did. It takes time for consumers to find you and watch you enough to get habituated. It will take time.

ESPN can provide you with subscribers, what they can't do is force those subscribers to watch in sufficient numbers to guarantee a rate which is really set by the advertiser and passed on to you by the network. If you want more money get more people to watch. It's really just that simple.

You are correct about what you and I think doesnt matter. But what folks in positions to know and to see these things thru, seem to have a more positive view of the ACCN first year. I remember seeing articles about the SECN first year generating $5per team. Then seeing posters put up info about the SECN doing even better at $7 million per team. Now its $3 million per team?

I also dont believe that 80% of of conference network revenue coming from fb. That was a number that was thrown around years ago by a conference higher up regarding what ESPN was paying a particular conference, even before conference networks started to take hold. I think it would be different with a conference network. Especially for a league like the ACC. Delaney once said that it was BIG basketball that really helped to get the BIGN gain traction because the season was so long.

This is correct. While the general rule is 80% of money comes from football, it is just that, a general rule. Conference networks, for example the big ten network, made a much higher percentage of money from basketball, and in fact was much more responsible for their growth than football, a seven big ten people weren’t enthused by games vs fcs schools and Lower level schools. But when teams were missing marquee basketball games, they started joining direct tv en masse, to stop kissing games.

Becuase the content on conference networks is far superior for basketball than football (you get marquee basketball matchups, while football
Matchups beyond orchestrated matchups to set up the network), and because acc fans tend to be more into basketball than most other conferences,It becomes more valuable for The ACC network.

The best course of action for the ACC people is to just keep your mouth shut until the numbers are in for real. If officials pump up expectations and it comes in flat or worse it's a huge negative. If the numbers come in higher than the public expects then it is an unmitigated success. But the only reason I and a few others have commented on it is that there is a track record now for conference network startups and without question the SEC and Big 10 are huge draws. If your conference can't finish above 4th for T1 and T2 telecasts for a year then how do realistically expect to out earn the BTN which I suppose might not have all of the advantages of ESPN pushing carriage, but the leader is the SEC and the numbers your leadership is tossing out is higher than our best earning years and we have all of those ESPN advantages too. So forgive me if I remain majorly skeptical of these high claims that defy what we already know to be reality.

And btw the Big 10 has pretty solid basketball content as well and the SEC of late has been getting stronger. Your interest in hoops is regional and the advertising money isn't as good.