Did say talks between the ACC & ESPN are starting to ramp up now...lso throw out the possibility that the SEC/ACC could share Distribution due to ESPN involvement if the ACC Network comes about.

But he would not expect an ACC Network to start up until around 2016

This is what I know about conference cable networks so far:

-The Pac12 controlled all of the fb/bb content needed for their cable network and didn't bring in a partner to help build it, so they own 100% of their network and will get 100% of the profit (whatever that turns out to be).

-The B1G controlled all of the fb/bb content needed for their cable network but brought in Fox as a partner. They own approx 50% of the BTN and get annual payments which have been significant.

-The SEC controlled 26 of the 45 football games (12 tier-3 games plus the addtl games brought by Mizz/A+M expansion). I don't know the SEC bb situation. According to the WSJ the SEC will receive significant annual payments for the cable network, but will have 0% equity in the venture. The SEC also extended their ESPN deal TEN YEARS as part of the deal.

The ACC does not control ANY of the fb/bb content needed for their cable network (anything ESPN doesn't show gets offered to Raycom as part of their deal).

How is the ACC going to any amount comparable to the other conferences when an ACC network starts?

Swofford said from the time the orginal deal was signed with ESPN that the ACC could set up a network if we wanted. So you have to assume there is something in the language of the contract that allows it. More than likely the language also prevents the ACC from setting up a network with anyone else other than ESPN so going completely alone or doing a deal with Fox isn't an option. I think these are both reasonable assumptions otherwise the ACC network would not be moving forward and it obviously is to anyone paying attention.

Assuming that an ACC network is announced in the next month or two, there is no reason that an ACC network could not start at the same time as the SEC network.

Pretty clear that ESPN is going to own the ACC network just as they own the SEC Network. ESPN put the SEC Network in Charlotte so they could base them out of the same house. No reason they cannot launch at the same time.

http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2013/04/2...h-the-acc/

(05-03-2013 09:18 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Swofford said from the time the orginal deal was signed with ESPN that the ACC could set up a network if we wanted. So you have to assume there is something in the language of the contract that allows it. More than likely the language also prevents the ACC from setting up a network with anyone else other than ESPN so going completely alone or doing a deal with Fox isn't an option. I think these are both reasonable assumptions otherwise the ACC network would not be moving forward and it obviously is to anyone paying attention.

I wasn't arguing the idea that an ACC network could be viable. If you looked at that Neilsen report that was leaked on the internet a couple of years ago, based on viewership the ACC is undervalued if anything.

My issue is with the people that argue this is going to make the ACC a lot of money or keep them in the same revenue ballpark as the SEC/B1G/Pac12.

The SEC rules college football right now, yet based on reports, the lack of equity in their network is a surprise which can only be attributable to the fact that the needed games back from ESPN to have enough content to start a network.

The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

I would guess espn would carbon copy the sec network with an acc network where they own 100%, thus they would have sec espn and acc espn both hq in charlotte. I could see them bundle them together, doubt the LHN gets cut in on the bundle. I also like the acc jumping to 18 with uconn, cincy and gtown for more content and markets, 2 divisions of 9. I think the only reason not to make that move is the dream of texas or ND football ever joining the acc, long wait for those to ever happen so i wouldn't bother.

ACC

atlantic: uva, va tech, unc, duke, nc state, wake, clem, ga tech, fsu

coastal: bc, uconn ,cuse, pitt, cincy, lville, miami, ND, gtown

hoops 16-2 format, 2 week-end hoops tourney. Football, rotating pods of 4.

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:18 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Swofford said from the time the orginal deal was signed with ESPN that the ACC could set up a network if we wanted. So you have to assume there is something in the language of the contract that allows it. More than likely the language also prevents the ACC from setting up a network with anyone else other than ESPN so going completely alone or doing a deal with Fox isn't an option. I think these are both reasonable assumptions otherwise the ACC network would not be moving forward and it obviously is to anyone paying attention.

I wasn't arguing the idea that an ACC network could be viable. If you looked at that Neilsen report that was leaked on the internet a couple of years ago, based on viewership the ACC is undervalued if anything.

My issue is with the people that argue this is going to make the ACC a lot of money or keep them in the same revenue ballpark as the SEC/B1G/Pac12.

The SEC rules college football right now, yet based on reports, the lack of equity in their network is a surprise which can only be attributable to the fact that the needed games back from ESPN to have enough content to start a network.

The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

How do you figure the ACC doesn't have any content? ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC. How is that any different? They'll choose how many games of each sport to put on the channel and move on.

(05-03-2013 09:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2013/04/2...h-the-acc/

Great find, Terry...

But I do reckon stever and that Iowa fan will come along and tell that the info in that article is complete "hokum".

(05-03-2013 10:24 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:18 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Swofford said from the time the orginal deal was signed with ESPN that the ACC could set up a network if we wanted. So you have to assume there is something in the language of the contract that allows it. More than likely the language also prevents the ACC from setting up a network with anyone else other than ESPN so going completely alone or doing a deal with Fox isn't an option. I think these are both reasonable assumptions otherwise the ACC network would not be moving forward and it obviously is to anyone paying attention.

I wasn't arguing the idea that an ACC network could be viable. If you looked at that Neilsen report that was leaked on the internet a couple of years ago, based on viewership the ACC is undervalued if anything.

My issue is with the people that argue this is going to make the ACC a lot of money or keep them in the same revenue ballpark as the SEC/B1G/Pac12.

The SEC rules college football right now, yet based on reports, the lack of equity in their network is a surprise which can only be attributable to the fact that the needed games back from ESPN to have enough content to start a network.

The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

How do you figure the ACC doesn't have any content? ESPN owns their rights just like the SEC. How is that any different? They'll choose how many games of each sport to put on the channel and move on.

Exactly...they would not be talking if this was not the case...it going to be an interesting next couple of months...

It's really impossible to answer that question without seeing the contracts with ESPN. All I can tell you is a provision was made in the contract to allow the ACC to start a network and neither the ACC nor ESPN would be pursuing the idea unless they both believed they were going to make a profit. Whether that keeps the ACC in the same ballpark as the SEC and Big Ten, I can't tell you. Obviously, the ACC presidents and boards of trustees believe it will or that grant of rights would have never been signed.

The PAC 12 is having a terrible time getting carriage for their network. With ESPN's backing, I don't think the ACC will have the same problem. So that alone should help the ACC pass the PAC 12 in revenue.

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

ESPN owns both the SEC and ACC. How does that mean the SEC has content and the ACC has none? Do you guys think about logic before repeating rumors that don't make sense?

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:18 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Swofford said from the time the orginal deal was signed with ESPN that the ACC could set up a network if we wanted. So you have to assume there is something in the language of the contract that allows it. More than likely the language also prevents the ACC from setting up a network with anyone else other than ESPN so going completely alone or doing a deal with Fox isn't an option. I think these are both reasonable assumptions otherwise the ACC network would not be moving forward and it obviously is to anyone paying attention.

I wasn't arguing the idea that an ACC network could be viable. If you looked at that Neilsen report that was leaked on the internet a couple of years ago, based on viewership the ACC is undervalued if anything.

My issue is with the people that argue this is going to make the ACC a lot of money or keep them in the same revenue ballpark as the SEC/B1G/Pac12.

The SEC rules college football right now, yet based on reports, the lack of equity in their network is a surprise which can only be attributable to the fact that the needed games back from ESPN to have enough content to start a network.

The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

The ACC already is in the same ballpark as the Pac. The ACC makes over $20 million to the Pac's $20.83 million and the contracts are reasonably similar in length (admittedly, the ACC is a little longer). However, as I understand it, ACC schools have retained more rights (i.e. coach shows aren't pledged to the conference) and the Pac-12 Network isn't hitting projections, so many ACC schools (if not most) could very well be ahead of the Pac-12 in media payout.

That will be especially true if the market bottoms out because the ACC has more guaranteed money.

(05-03-2013 10:26 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2013/04/2...h-the-acc/

Great find, Terry...

But I do reckon stever and that Iowa fan will come along and tell that the info in that article is complete "hokum".

I stole it from Cardinal Jim on the ACC board.....

(05-03-2013 10:31 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

ESPN owns both the SEC and ACC. How does that mean the SEC has content and the ACC has none? Do you guys think about logic before repeating rumors that don't make sense?

I would think a person such as yourself would take the time to learn know more about the landscape of college football before posting on such a subject-specific board.

Here's your answer-

The SEC has existing TV contracts with CBS and ESPN. The games that were not covered by those contracts are:

-one game per school (tier 3) that has been sold in individual local deals by that school (like the B12). The SEC schools have bought out those contracts to get the rights to those 12 games back.
-the additional 12-14 home games brought by the addition of Texas A+M and Missouri, which as of this point had NOT been added to the previous CBS/ESPN contracts by a renegotiation.

This means the SEC owned the rights to 24-26 football games and contributed those to the creation of the SEC network

On the other hand, the ACC contract with ESPN gave ESPN the rights to ALL of the football games. After Pitt and Syracuse were added, it was publicly announced that the ACC/ESPN deal was renegotiated to account for the expansion and the ACC would be getting more money, but ESPN still had rights to all of the games.

That means the ACC owns the rights to ZERO of the football games that could be shown on an ACC network.

lol, this is too funny.

Help me out, Krupper. Why on earth would all of those schools sign a GOR if they didn't own any of their games and therefore couldn't profit from them as you seem to be asserting?

Why don't message board people ever pay any attention at all to reality?

(05-03-2013 11:05 AM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:31 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:14 AM)krup Wrote:  The ACC doesn't have any content to start a network with so they are in a much worse position than the SEC.

ESPN owns both the SEC and ACC. How does that mean the SEC has content and the ACC has none? Do you guys think about logic before repeating rumors that don't make sense?

I would think a person such as yourself would take the time to learn know more about the landscape of college football before posting on such a subject-specific board.

Here's your answer-

The SEC has existing TV contracts with CBS and ESPN. The games that were not covered by those contracts are:

-one game per school (tier 3) that has been sold in individual local deals by that school (like the B12). The SEC schools have bought out those contracts to get the rights to those 12 games back.
-the additional 12-14 home games brought by the addition of Texas A+M and Missouri, which as of this point had NOT been added to the previous CBS/ESPN contracts by a renegotiation.

This means the SEC owned the rights to 24-26 football games and contributed those to the creation of the SEC network

On the other hand, the ACC contract with ESPN gave ESPN the rights to ALL of the football games. After Pitt and Syracuse were added, it was publicly announced that the ACC/ESPN deal was renegotiated to account for the expansion and the ACC would be getting more money, but ESPN still had rights to all of the games.

That means the ACC owns the rights to ZERO of the football games that could be shown on an ACC network.

It like this....you still have the Raycom/ACC & really think about it....would the ACC PPresidents especially in Tallahassee would tue themselves to a GoR and now you have ppl outside of the ACC talking about a potential ACC Network and that neither the ACC or ESPN would not look @ this if it is not a $$$ maker....time will tell but my gurss by the end of 2013 they will be announcing a ACC Network.

I think sooner.