(06-26-2019 01:03 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco did say production quality would have to be upgraded, which could be costly. The schools are obligated to provide an ESPN-level production.

I suspect at many G5 schools, the existing 'in house' production is of public access cable quality. But two mass-com majors wielding steady-cams for internship credit won't cut it.

But the capital costs of the upgrade don't have to be paid every year ... only the operating costs. So there's a wide range of financial impacts depending upon the qualify of the broadcast infrastructure already in place. I'm thinking "as much as $2m" is more like the worst case, and for a BBall focused school with a third tier broadcast deal in the range of a million, it's not likely that UConn is anywhere near the worst case for required upgrade costs.

The reduction in travel costs is likely to be a much bigger financial increment. Half of the Big East is closer than the second closest all-sports AAC member, four of the AAC schools are farther than the longest Big East trip.

I realize that AAC will not have their own linear channel, they will have a branded digital channel... But if you look at what the SEC had to spend for their production, the cost and what the ACC had to spend for the ACCN. The $2M per AAC school and farming out Raycom for the Title games sound like a real bargin. The final cost could be higher! But their are two ways to do it. First the SEC way where they spread the cost over multiple years and then the ACC where they are fronting the total cost at teh start. It would appear the way your Commish is speaking is that the AAC will do it over multiple years like the SEC did... The 2M is a steal... IMHO

From articles:
It’s an expensive proposition that could lead to spending $100,000 on a camera platform or $1 million to run fiber-optic connections from a school’s venues to the control rooms.

Some schools have greater infrastructure needs, which leads to more construction costs to retrofit spaces or build new buildings. Those dollars add up, especially given the ACC’s commitment to have it all ready by launch. Many SEC schools built up their production capabilities after launch.

A year ago, Virginia Tech was expecting to spend $5 million to $7 million to prepare for the ACC Network’s demands. The final budget came in at $10 million.

ESPN and the Atlantic Coast Conference are still gearing up to launch the ACC Network as a linear channel next year (it already exists as a digital brand), but that’s going to be expensive. At Sports Business Journal, Michael Smith dove into the ACC schools’ preparations for the network launch, which are now expected to cost $6 to $10 million per school (up from the $5 to $7 million reported last summer) and $110 to $120 million overall, four times what SEC schools spent ahead of the 2014 SEC Network launch. That launch saw some schools like Arkansas spend up to $7 million, but others like Florida spend less than a million. So why are things so expensive for the ACC?

SEC schools started out producing live events with digital standards as opposed to linear standards. In the most crude cases, an SEC school produced games for the digital platform using a single camera combined with the school’s radio broadcast or a Flypack mobile unit if a control room wasn’t available.


For SEC games going on the linear channel, ESPN brought in its own production truck. Over time, SEC schools have raised their standards, which has allowed them to spread the costs for equipment over several years. But the ACC’s goal at launch is to have every school prepared to produce multiple live events at linear-TV quality at the same time.



Link
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour...story.aspx

Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...aunch.html