(04-25-2014 08:22 PM)krux Wrote:  Am I the only one that doesn't give a fugg? I mean, I like watching sports not a bunch of suits using non-profits to turn profits.

I'm going to watch UofL compete to titles whether we're making $10 or $10 million.

+1

I think that the benefits of a network are severely over-blown, and I think that the importance of TV money I severely over-blown.

At the end of the day, we are all making enough money to compete, and I'll watch my orange regardless. I was there during the GRob years, and I'll be there in the future, good, bad, or ugly.

Fox could change Fox College Sports Atlantic to the ACC network, and just reconfigure the other two Fox College Sports channels.

Does any other conference have the type of relationship that the ACC has with Raycom?

TV money is most important to the bottom 2 quintiles of the P5. Those 20 or so need the money to stay competitive with the top 25 or so football teams so that there is a watchable product.

One of the dirty little secrets of college football is that Michigan and Ohio State need Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Minnesota, and now Rutgers and MD, as well as the Bama, needs Ole Miss, MSU, Vandy, etc.

The one's who don't NEED TV money are the ones with the huge football stadiums that are full and the four with enough private donations to sustain anything:

Huge full stadium: Bama, Auburn, Tennessee, TAMU, LSU, Florida, SC, Georgia, FSU, Clemson, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA, Notre Dame

Private donation: Duke, Stanford, Oregon, Oklahoma State

The middle quintile is composed of schools that mostly do not have the huge football stadium but an average sized football stadium but often an outsized and full basketball arena
UNC, UVa, NC State, Louisville, Indiana, Purdue, Kansas, Kentucky, Arizona, BYU, Syracuse, Arkansas, Mizzou

The bottom two income quintiles are roughly, BC, Pitt, GT, Miami, WF, Ole Miss, MSU, Vandy, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, TT, Washington State, Oregon State, Utah, Colorado, MD, Rutgers, Northwestern - these at the bottom need the TV money most to be able to put a competitive football product on the field in their respective conferences. Most of these are small schools, with small alumni bases, putting them behind the 8-ball when it comes to the money war.

Without the TV money, these in the bottom quintiles might be hard-pressed to stay in the game. Every school on the bottom in terms of income within their conference still adds something to their conference if not in football, often in other areas.

(04-26-2014 11:08 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Does any other conference have the type of relationship that the ACC has with Raycom?

No. It's a long story that goes back to CD Chesley and Jefferson Pilot Insurance televising basketball games in the 1950's. They were a loyal ACC partner for decades and the ACC Presidents and Chancellors were not of the mind to cut them loose due in part to that long term loyalty. Although Chesley is dead and Raycom is not quite the exact same beats, if you are old enough to have "sailed with the Pilot" you understand.

XLance seems to be old enough to know business history of Greensboro and since Greensboro is the root he might expound more. Believe it or not, loyalty and your word was prized above all things in the ACC for many, many decades. The relationship with Raycom falls into that category. Also know that within the State of NC, there is, or was, the expectation that the ACC will act as a positive economic development force for the State of NC as well as SC and Va. It may seem foolish and old fashioned now, but that's how it was.

(04-25-2014 06:31 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  1. The guys that do have access to all of the relevant info and are qualified to make judgments chose to sign the GOR. That should put all of this to bed. The financials are not as dire as some say, otherwise this would not have happened. In fact, they would have to be comparable to other conferences for the GOR to happen.

Both of the "guys" from Clemson who agreed to this deal have retired and don't have to deal with e consequences.

Quote:2. ADs have publicly stated that an ACC network was all but certain. Those guys don't make public statements like that to look foolish.

You mean ADs who make statements like this:

Quote: "Yeah, we're a little bit frustrated in this area," Phillips said. The AD returned from New York where he was attending ceremonies honoring the induction of former Clemson great, linebacker Jeff Davis into the College Football Hall of Fame.

"We're in the best position in a long time to make that move to the upper level," Phillips said

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3140991

Notice this was the AD who was part and parcel with Clemson signing the GOR in December 2007 when he signed Tommy Bowden to a long term extension. He fired Bowden ten months later.

So about the statements ADs make.....

(04-24-2014 10:11 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  That's a pretty strong bet against ESPN: that FS1 is going to somehow become its peer. Plus, if you eschew ESPN as a network partner, you are taking on a lot more of the network start up costs on yourself, and you are eschewing their expertise in helping to distributing the network product.

Of course, that is the bet the Big East was going to make (and the hoop schools did make) as far as going with Fox and the bet the Pac12 made in undertaking sole ownership of its network.

But I think the bottom line is that you don't want to wait until the contract is up to get a network started. Heck, what does it go through, 2027?, who knows if cable tv is even around then.

I expect IPTV and a transition to mini-bundles and/or a-la-carte to bring Disney television properties (and thus ESPN) quite literally to the brink of bankruptcy. I would gladly pay the ACC $250/yr to get access to ALL games. I'd cut the cord if that happened.

(04-27-2014 04:59 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:11 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  That's a pretty strong bet against ESPN: that FS1 is going to somehow become its peer. Plus, if you eschew ESPN as a network partner, you are taking on a lot more of the network start up costs on yourself, and you are eschewing their expertise in helping to distributing the network product.

Of course, that is the bet the Big East was going to make (and the hoop schools did make) as far as going with Fox and the bet the Pac12 made in undertaking sole ownership of its network.

But I think the bottom line is that you don't want to wait until the contract is up to get a network started. Heck, what does it go through, 2027?, who knows if cable tv is even around then.

I expect IPTV and a transition to mini-bundles and/or a-la-carte to bring Disney television properties (and thus ESPN) quite literally to the brink of bankruptcy. I would gladly pay the ACC $250/yr to get access to ALL games. I'd cut the cord if that happened.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. You don't think Disney has IPTV strategies ready to go no matter what ultimately happens with a-la-carte or similar? These companies have people thinking about this stuff 24/7. What do you think ESPN3 is? The infrastructure for them to do that is essentially already in place.

In such a scenario, you likely won't be paying $250 a year to the ACC (and remember, it wouldn't have rights to its OOC away games anyway). What you'll likely be doing is is paying that to ESPN to get all of its properties: the ACC, the SEC and the rest of its college package, NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. And Fox will probably offer its own sports package, etc. Instead of cable companies bundling channels together, broadcast media conglomerates will. Only the Pac owns its own channel, so my guess is it is the only one you'd be able to buy truly "a la carte", which means if things go that way, I would think the Pac Network would be in serious trouble unless it finds partners to bundle with.

Anyway, it is all interesting to think about, but I wouldn't bet against Disney.

So Barker and Phillips didn't care because they knew they would be retired? They didn't care about their legacy and how history would judge them? Any sane person can see how ludicrous that notion is. Common sense is clearly a foreign language to you.

(04-27-2014 01:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 06:31 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  1. The guys that do have access to all of the relevant info and are qualified to make judgments chose to sign the GOR. That should put all of this to bed. The financials are not as dire as some say, otherwise this would not have happened. In fact, they would have to be comparable to other conferences for the GOR to happen.

Both of the "guys" from Clemson who agreed to this deal have retired and don't have to deal with e consequences.

Quote:2. ADs have publicly stated that an ACC network was all but certain. Those guys don't make public statements like that to look foolish.

You mean ADs who make statements like this:

Quote: "Yeah, we're a little bit frustrated in this area," Phillips said. The AD returned from New York where he was attending ceremonies honoring the induction of former Clemson great, linebacker Jeff Davis into the College Football Hall of Fame.

"We're in the best position in a long time to make that move to the upper level," Phillips said

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3140991

Notice this was the AD who was part and parcel with Clemson signing the GOR in December 2007 when he signed Tommy Bowden to a long term extension. He fired Bowden ten months later.

So about the statements ADs make.....

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-27-2014 12:14 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I wouldn't hold my breath on that. You don't think Disney has IPTV strategies ready to go no matter what ultimately happens with a-la-carte or similar? These companies have people thinking about this stuff 24/7. What do you think ESPN3 is? The infrastructure for them to do that is essentially already in place.

In such a scenario, you likely won't be paying $250 a year to the ACC (and remember, it wouldn't have rights to its OOC away games anyway). What you'll likely be doing is is paying that to ESPN to get all of its properties: the ACC, the SEC and the rest of its college package, NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. And Fox will probably offer its own sports package, etc. Instead of cable companies bundling channels together, broadcast media conglomerates will. Only the Pac owns its own channel, so my guess is it is the only one you'd be able to buy truly "a la carte", which means if things go that way, I would think the Pac Network would be in serious trouble unless it finds partners to bundle with.

Anyway, it is all interesting to think about, but I wouldn't bet against Disney.

Disney and Discovery Networks are the two biggest and most heavily leveraged cable bundlers. But Disney .... you have to stand in awe ... in AWE ... of their massive stuffed-down-your-gullet bundle. Not only easily the most channels ... but also the two most expensive individual channels (ESPN, ESPN2).

Quote:Disney–ABC Television Group

ABC, Inc. DBA Disney–ABC Television Group
Disney/ABC Television Group Digital Media
Walt Disney Television
Disney-ABC Domestic Television - formerly Buena Vista Television
Disney-ABC International Television - formerly Buena Vista International Television
ABC Television Network
ABC News
Fusion (TV channel), joint venture news cable channel
ABC Enterprises, Inc.
Hulu (32%)


A+E Networks (joint venture with Hearst Corporation; 50% equity holding)
A&E
History
Bio.
H2
Military History
Crime & Investigation Network
A+E Networks International
A+E Networks Consumer Products
A+E Studios
A&E IndieFilms
A+E Films
A+E Networks Digital
Lifetime Entertainment Services
Lifetime
Lifetime Movie Network
Lifetime Real Women
Lifetime Press
Lifetime Digital
myLifetime.com
LMN.tv
Lifetime Games
Roiworld.com, fashion games
DressUpChallenge.com, a fashion site
LifetimeMoms.com
MothersClick.com


ABC Entertainment Group
ABC Digital
ABC Entertainment
ABC Studios - formerly Touchstone Television & ABC Television Studios
Times Square Studios (division)
ABC Family Worldwide Inc.
ABC Family
ABC Spark - with Corus Entertainment
ABC Family Digital
BVS Entertainment
Saban Entertainment / Fox Kids, Ltd. library
DePatie-Freleng Enterprises / Marvel Productions, Ltd. library


ABC Owned Television Stations Group
WLS-7 Chicago, Illinois
KFSN-30 Fresno, California
KTRK-13 Houston, Texas
KABC-7 Los Angeles, California
WABC-7 New York City
WPVI-6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
WTVD-11 Raleigh-Durham
KGO-7 San Francisco, California
Live Well Network
ABC National Television Sales
ABC Regional Sports and Entertainment Sales


Disney Channels Worldwide
Disney Channel
Disney Cinemagic
Disney Junior
Disney XD
Hungama
Radio Disney
Disney Television Animation


ESPN, Inc. (Disney 80%)
ESPN
ESPN2
ESPN on ABC - formerly ABC Sports
ESPN Classic
ESPNews
ESPN Deportes
ESPN Films
ESPNU
ESPN Classic
ESPN Now
ESPN Plus
ESPN Original Entertainment
ESPN Pay-Per-View
ESPN Regional Television
ESPN International (see for complete list of channels)
ESPN America
TSN (20%)
ESPN Radio
Mobile ESPN
ESPN3
ESPN The Magazine
ESPN Books (an imprint of Disney's Hyperion Books)
ESPN Home Entertainment
ESPN Outdoors
BASS
ESPN Digital Center

A huge number of those channels cannot survive in their present state in an IPTV / a-la-carte world. In particular, ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU is very high risk very high reward. The length of their multiple multi-billion dollar contracts (ACC, SEC, B1G, Big 12, MAC, Sun Belt, NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL) means a dramatic shift in consumer fulfillment models will leave them like a fully laden megatanker trying to slam on brakes .... slow, sluggish, and far too big to avoid running aground.

I remember ESPN proposed to the ACC that they convert ESPNU to ESPN/ACC (or something like that). I would guess that the launch of an ACC channel would coincide with the end of ESPNU, regardless of what they call it. They'll want to push some risk off on the conferences.

When the hell did ESPN say ESPNU would become an ACC network?

(04-29-2014 12:57 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  When the hell did ESPN say ESPNU would become an ACC network?

I went back and checked my notes - it was April, 2013 - and you are right to call me out; I "mis-remembered". While this WAS rumored at that time, there was nothing attributable to ESPN.

I remember people on here suggesting that, thinking back. But I never saw that anywhere else.

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I remember people on here suggesting that, thinking back. But I never saw that anywhere else.

That is a good indication that it was most likely true.

(04-29-2014 12:45 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I remember people on here suggesting that, thinking back. But I never saw that anywhere else.

That is a good indication that it was most likely true.

LOL!

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  But Disney .... you have to stand in awe ... in AWE ... of their massive stuffed-down-your-gullet bundle. Not only easily the most channels ... but also the two most expensive individual channels (ESPN, ESPN2).

Not a big deal, but Disney costs almost twice as much as ESPN2.

The thing is, Disney is the most popular cable channel... period. And ESPN is the most powerful. Evne if ala carte becomes reality, you cannot force the individual companies to unbunble. And thus, and this is no exaggeration, in an ala carte world you would end up paying MORE to get the Disney bundle now, then you current play for all of expanded basic cable, which essentially includes all of the channels owned by Disney, and of course all of the other popular channels.

Nearly every projection shows, and with real life examples, that the retail price of a channel will be a MINIMUM of 1000% of the wholesale price. ESPN's wholesale price is $5.25. Disney's is $1.15. Haven't included any other Disney owned channels. Do the math.

(04-29-2014 01:07 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  But Disney .... you have to stand in awe ... in AWE ... of their massive stuffed-down-your-gullet bundle. Not only easily the most channels ... but also the two most expensive individual channels (ESPN, ESPN2).

Not a big deal, but Disney costs almost twice as much as ESPN2.

The thing is, Disney is the most popular cable channel... period. And ESPN is the most powerful. Evne if ala carte becomes reality, you cannot force the individual companies to unbunble. And thus, and this is no exaggeration, in an ala carte world you would end up paying MORE to get the Disney bundle now, then you current play for all of expanded basic cable, which essentially includes all of the channels owned by Disney, and of course all of the other popular channels.

Nearly every projection shows, and with real life examples, that the retail price of a channel will be a MINIMUM of 1000% of the wholesale price. ESPN's wholesale price is $5.25. Disney's is $1.15. Haven't included any other Disney owned channels. Do the math.

Disney is not the most popular. It isn't even close.

Primetime
1. USA, 2.4 million average viewers
2. ESPN, 2.2
3. History, 1.9
4. TBS, 1.9
5. TNT, 1.9
6. Fox News Channel, 1.8
7. A&E, 1.6
8. FX, 1.3
9. AMC, 1.2
10. HGTV, 1.2
11. Discovery, 1.2
12. Adult Swim, 1.2
13. ABC Family, 1.1
14. Lifetime, 1.1
15. Nick at Nite, 1.1
16. Syfy, 1.0
17. Food Network, 1.0
18. TLC, .96
19. TruTV, .86
20. Bravo,.84

Total Day
1. Nickelodeon, 1.7 average viewers
2. USA Network, 1.3
3. Adult Swim, 1.3
4. Fox News Channel, 1.1
5. TNT, 1.1
6. Nick at Nite, 1.0
7. Cartoon Network, 1.0
8. ESPN, .97
9. History, .94
10. A&E, .83
11. TBS, .77
12. HGTV, .73
13. FX, .69
14. AMC, .63
15. ID, .59
16. Discovery, .59
17. Food Network, .58
18. ABC Family, .58
19. TVLand, .54
20. Lifetime, .53


http://www.thewrap.com/2013-most-watched...e-rankings



The people who could get away with mini bundles in an a-la-carte future are the Turners (TBS/TNT/Cartoon Network/Others), Fox (News/FX/Others). Disney and Discovery however would collapse.

(04-29-2014 05:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Disney is not the most popular. It isn't even close.

Primetime
1. USA, 2.4 million average viewers
2. ESPN, 2.2
3. History, 1.9
4. TBS, 1.9
5. TNT, 1.9
6. Fox News Channel, 1.8
7. A&E, 1.6
8. FX, 1.3
9. AMC, 1.2
10. HGTV, 1.2


The people who could get away with mini bundles in an a-la-carte future are the Turners (TBS/TNT/Cartoon Network/Others), Fox (News/FX/Others). Disney and Discovery however would collapse.

The Disney Channel is not "ad supported" so it does not appear on that list. Disney is number one by far. Hell their ratings just for the kid demos under 12 have more viewers, just under 12, than most of the networks on this list have in total viewers. They destroy most of the networks on that list, and only USA and ESPN ever come close in primetime, and no one comes close overall. That is why USA always includes "ad supported cable networks" on their press releases about being the top rated cable network, specifically so they can exclude Disney. And being that Disney is the highest rated kids network, every week for the last I think 135 weeks and counting, it is mindblowing how much power they weild.

People think ala Carte is new. ala Carte predates bundling. HBO, Showtime, the Movie Channel, etc. Those are ala carte; and look at the price. Disney used to be ala carte, and they charged the same as HBO. Then they started converting system by system to wholesale, and dropped their fee by 96%, from $10 per month, to around $0.40 per month (since increased). If they went back to ala carter, well we already know the price.

Now imagine others increasing at the same percentage.

(04-30-2014 11:15 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  The Disney Channel is not "ad supported" so it does not appear on that list. Disney is number one by far. Hell their ratings just for the kid demos under 12 have more viewers, just under 12, than most of the networks on this list have in total viewers. They destroy most of the networks on that list, and only USA and ESPN ever come close in primetime, and no one comes close overall. That is why USA always includes "ad supported cable networks" on their press releases about being the top rated cable network, specifically so they can exclude Disney. And being that Disney is the highest rated kids network, every week for the last I think 135 weeks and counting, it is mindblowing how much power they weild.

People think ala Carte is new. ala Carte predates bundling. HBO, Showtime, the Movie Channel, etc. Those are ala carte; and look at the price. Disney used to be ala carte, and they charged the same as HBO. Then they started converting system by system to wholesale, and dropped their fee by 96%, from $10 per month, to around $0.40 per month (since increased). If they went back to ala carter, well we already know the price.

Now imagine others increasing at the same percentage.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/2012-bas...nite-fall/

Quote:Top 20 Cable Networks In Primetime: Total Viewers (in millions)/% change from 2011

1. USA 2.973 -10%

2. Disney 2.473 -9%

3. ESPN 2.213 -2%

4. History 2.192 +9%

5. TNT 2.176 -5%

6. FNC 2.034 +10

7. TBS 1.963 +23

8. A&E 1.633 +4

9. Adult Swim 1.448 -2%

10. FX 1.436 -8%

11. Family 1.352 -9%

12. SyFy 1.337 -3%

13. Discovery 1.288 -1%

14. Food Network 1.235 +4%

15. Lifetime 1.204 +7%

16. AMC 1.199 +1%

17. HGTV 1.185 -2%

18. TLC 1.089 -1%

19. TruTV 1.076 -2%

20. Nick At Nite 1.059 -36%

Top 20 Cable Networks in Primetime: Adults 18-49 Ratings (Viewership in millions)/% change from last year

1. USA 1.092 -13%

2. ESPN 1.062 0%

3. TBS 1.061 +20%

4. TNT 0.909 -8%

5. History 0.899 0%

6. FX 0. 801 -8&

7. A&E 0.761 0%

8. Adult Swim 0.673 -4%

9. Discovery 0.662 -3%

10. Family 0.649 -5%

11. MTV 0.586 -25%

12. SyFy 0.580 -2%

13. Food Network 0.570 -1%

14. Bravo 0.559 -6%

15. Comedy Central 0.542 -14%

16. TruTV 0.532 -2%

17. Lifetime 0.531 +14%

18. AMC 0.528 +11%

19. TLC 0.505 -5%

20. Disney 0.471 -13%

Still not #1.

And I'd come out cheaper picking out my a-la-carte channels than picking up 500 channels of crap I will never watch. ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, Fox Sports South, Fox Sports 1, Charter/Comcast Sports South, Science, Palladia, Fox Business, Comedy Central, and then pick up ABC/NBC/CBS/CW/FOX over the air. Netflix is both cheaper and has more selection than HBO, Cinemax, etc.

I disagree with expecting a huge price inflation on all channels. Small market channels will depend on advertising alone and make distribution free. Right now they're double dipping. 100% of a smaller pie is vastly superior to 100% of nothing. I would expect for only big weight properties like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, ESPN, Fox Sports, and similar to be able to hack it charging big bucks a month. And I would expect them to bundle their similar properties as well.