With as tight lipped as Swofford usually is on the topic I'm surprised he let out this many details on the ACC Network

Good Work by Warchant.

https://floridastate.n.rivals.com/news/s...ons-future

Highlights:
* the conference athletic directors were comforted by what they heard from ESPN executives during meetings this week.
* ESPN is in the discussions with us... to make [more] money, too.
* we’re talking about decisions that are not only very important, but they’re for the long term. So getting it right is a lot more important than expediency.
* it might not be as simple as establishing a channel on existing cable or satellite platforms.
* there’s a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together under our partnership. As opposed to a guaranteed rights fee.
* there has been discussion... that ESPN will be reluctant to invest in any major initiatives while tightening its belt due to substantial losses in the numbers of cable subscribers nationally... that is not a concern.
* ESPN is a perfect partner in a changing media landscape. “When you’re a partner with ESPN, they’re cutting-edge people,” Swofford said. I think they’ll continue to be aggressive about college sports, about live events. And I think they’ll continue to be very aggressive in terms of how they distribute those live events. And that could be very important going forward … to have a partner of that nature. “With technology and so forth, you want to be with people who are progressive and have flexibility, that are willing to adapt. And I think that’s who our partner is. We’re bullish about it, and I’d say they’re bullish about it.”
* asked about reports that ESPN will be contractually obligated to pay the ACC $45 million (about $3 million per school) if a network is not established by July. He declined to comment. An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached.

(05-12-2016 03:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Highlights:
* the conference athletic directors were comforted by what they heard from ESPN executives during meetings this week.
* ESPN is in the discussions with us... to make [more] money, too.
* we’re talking about decisions that are not only very important, but they’re for the long term. So getting it right is a lot more important than expediency.
* it might not be as simple as establishing a channel on existing cable or satellite platforms.
* there’s a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together under our partnership. As opposed to a guaranteed rights fee.
* there has been discussion... that ESPN will be reluctant to invest in any major initiatives while tightening its belt due to substantial losses in the numbers of cable subscribers nationally... that is not a concern.
* ESPN is a perfect partner in a changing media landscape. “When you’re a partner with ESPN, they’re cutting-edge people,” Swofford said. I think they’ll continue to be aggressive about college sports, about live events. And I think they’ll continue to be very aggressive in terms of how they distribute those live events. And that could be very important going forward … to have a partner of that nature. “With technology and so forth, you want to be with people who are progressive and have flexibility, that are willing to adapt. And I think that’s who our partner is. We’re bullish about it, and I’d say they’re bullish about it.”
* asked about reports that ESPN will be contractually obligated to pay the ACC $45 million (about $3 million per school) if a network is not established by July. He declined to comment. An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached.

That's all good. The fact that the AD's were all comforted by what they heard is comforting to me.

(05-12-2016 04:15 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 03:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Highlights:
* the conference athletic directors were comforted by what they heard from ESPN executives during meetings this week.
* ESPN is in the discussions with us... to make [more] money, too.
* we’re talking about decisions that are not only very important, but they’re for the long term. So getting it right is a lot more important than expediency.
* it might not be as simple as establishing a channel on existing cable or satellite platforms.
* there’s a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together under our partnership. As opposed to a guaranteed rights fee.
* there has been discussion... that ESPN will be reluctant to invest in any major initiatives while tightening its belt due to substantial losses in the numbers of cable subscribers nationally... that is not a concern.
* ESPN is a perfect partner in a changing media landscape. “When you’re a partner with ESPN, they’re cutting-edge people,” Swofford said. I think they’ll continue to be aggressive about college sports, about live events. And I think they’ll continue to be very aggressive in terms of how they distribute those live events. And that could be very important going forward … to have a partner of that nature. “With technology and so forth, you want to be with people who are progressive and have flexibility, that are willing to adapt. And I think that’s who our partner is. We’re bullish about it, and I’d say they’re bullish about it.”
* asked about reports that ESPN will be contractually obligated to pay the ACC $45 million (about $3 million per school) if a network is not established by July. He declined to comment. An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached.

That's all good. The fact that the AD's were all comforted by what they heard is comforting to me.

That's what stood out to me. If GT and FSU are happy, so am I. Both of those schools have very strong incentives to get paid. I just hope that an ACCN doesn't involve lengthening out T1/2 commitment to ESPN.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...53192.html

The News and Observer has much the same and along with the Greensboro N&R is the defacto paper of record for the league office.

Dave Teel would be the only media person that might have a greater depth of actual knowledge as he is sometimes used to dispense news. But it appears that something both lucrative and outside the box is in the works.

I am skeptical of anything offered being anything close to Big Ten or SEC TV money. It sounds like ESPN wants something that will give them something for the 45 million they have to pay the ACC. I am afraid that we will end up with something like 4 million per team. Then the gap will continue to grow with the SEC and BIG TEN. Louisville will be less empacted than some of our conference mates. We are used to competing on an uneven playing field and fighting uphill battles. Football may not always drive the bus. Lot can happen in 20 years.

(05-12-2016 03:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Highlights:
* the conference athletic directors were comforted by what they heard from ESPN executives during meetings this week.
* ESPN is in the discussions with us... to make [more] money, too.
* we’re talking about decisions that are not only very important, but they’re for the long term. So getting it right is a lot more important than expediency.
* it might not be as simple as establishing a channel on existing cable or satellite platforms.
* there’s a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together under our partnership. As opposed to a guaranteed rights fee.
* there has been discussion... that ESPN will be reluctant to invest in any major initiatives while tightening its belt due to substantial losses in the numbers of cable subscribers nationally... that is not a concern.
* ESPN is a perfect partner in a changing media landscape. “When you’re a partner with ESPN, they’re cutting-edge people,” Swofford said. I think they’ll continue to be aggressive about college sports, about live events. And I think they’ll continue to be very aggressive in terms of how they distribute those live events. And that could be very important going forward … to have a partner of that nature. “With technology and so forth, you want to be with people who are progressive and have flexibility, that are willing to adapt. And I think that’s who our partner is. We’re bullish about it, and I’d say they’re bullish about it.”
* asked about reports that ESPN will be contractually obligated to pay the ACC $45 million (about $3 million per school) if a network is not established by July. He declined to comment. An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached.

Fifth bullet:
* there’s a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together under our partnership. As opposed to a guaranteed rights fee.
Does this suggest that ESPN wants the conference to get paid according to P&L results vs. the current fixed payout? Are they asking the conference to take an ownership/investor stake in the ACCN? Perhaps ESPN feels that there is too much risk involved and they want the ACC to share the risk.
Any other interpretations?

Given the length of the deal that ESPN will require the ACC probably wants an ownership stake to ensure that future profits have the potential to go far above what a guaranteed pay out negotiated now would be.

(05-12-2016 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...53192.html

The News and Observer has much the same and along with the Greensboro N&R is the defacto paper of record for the league office.

Dave Teel would be the only media person that might have a greater depth of actual knowledge as he is sometimes used to dispense news. But it appears that something both lucrative and outside the box is in the works.

It's going to be a BS online "network".

Quote:More than once, though, he either spoke directly about or alluded to ESPN's ingenuity and creativeness. Swofford spoke about how negotiations these days are often less about traditional things – like rights fees – and more about “developing businesses together that are a partnership.”

Again, who knows what that means, exactly. From the sound of it, though, the conversations between the ACC and ESPN go much deeper than, “So, how about that network? Yay or nay?” And a network, in the traditional sense of the word, might be only a piece of what they're discussing at all.

Swofford made a point on Thursday to praise the ACC as a visionary in college sports. As proof, he pointed to league's early expansion from nine to 12 teams as evidence that the ACC knew where college sports would be headed, eventually.

You get the sense now that Swofford is attempting to build on the ACC's visionary status through whatever the next step is with TV – whether it's a dedicated channel or something else that takes advantage of emerging technology. What that next step looks like, though, is unclear.

The prospect of an ACC channel seems less likely now than it did three years ago, when it became a substantive topic after the league reached its grant of rights agreement. That doesn't mean that a channel won't come to be, or that something else won't take its place.

If we vote to extend the GOR for a BS ACC version of WatchESPN I'm dumping my IPTAY contributions next year and I'm not alone. No need to support an athletic program that signs a death pact with a bunch of schools with stage four lung cancer.

No way will an Online network like ESPN 3 ever workout. Have You ever gone to watch a big game or even 1 that isn't at a sports bar or out somewhere ? The Online games shown will require a computer hooked up to a TV and the Images suck as well as images freezing up and streaming losses. Sound also is behind or ahead of what You see. Restaurants and bars will lose millions of dollars with that crap. A Traditional ACC Network like the SEC & B1G are the Only way to go.

(05-12-2016 11:14 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 03:50 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Highlights:
* the conference athletic directors were comforted by what they heard from ESPN executives during meetings this week.
* ESPN is in the discussions with us... to make [more] money, too.
* we’re talking about decisions that are not only very important, but they’re for the long term. So getting it right is a lot more important than expediency.
* it might not be as simple as establishing a channel on existing cable or satellite platforms.
* there’s a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together under our partnership. As opposed to a guaranteed rights fee.
* there has been discussion... that ESPN will be reluctant to invest in any major initiatives while tightening its belt due to substantial losses in the numbers of cable subscribers nationally... that is not a concern.
* ESPN is a perfect partner in a changing media landscape. “When you’re a partner with ESPN, they’re cutting-edge people,” Swofford said. I think they’ll continue to be aggressive about college sports, about live events. And I think they’ll continue to be very aggressive in terms of how they distribute those live events. And that could be very important going forward … to have a partner of that nature. “With technology and so forth, you want to be with people who are progressive and have flexibility, that are willing to adapt. And I think that’s who our partner is. We’re bullish about it, and I’d say they’re bullish about it.”
* asked about reports that ESPN will be contractually obligated to pay the ACC $45 million (about $3 million per school) if a network is not established by July. He declined to comment. An FSU source confirmed to Warchant previously that the school is expecting such a payment if the deal isn’t reached.

Fifth bullet:
* there’s a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together under our partnership. As opposed to a guaranteed rights fee.
Does this suggest that ESPN wants the conference to get paid according to P&L results vs. the current fixed payout? Are they asking the conference to take an ownership/investor stake in the ACCN? Perhaps ESPN feels that there is too much risk involved and they want the ACC to share the risk.
Any other interpretations?

This is probably more of the ACC schools pushing ESPN for ownership. Having observed the BTC, SECN and LHN, the ACC has probably determined that true partnership where both parties have a financial stake will be the most rewarding over the decades.

The risk for ESPN is that they have a proof of concept from a competitor, Fox, which has proven to be the most stable and most prosperous model. Should they lose the ACC to Fox, or another broadcaster willing to follow the same model, ESPN will lose out on profit.

Profit maximization is a goal of all parties. However, ESPN cannot be so fixated on their desire to maximize their profit that they lose all profit and to a competitor. ESPN is contractually bound to work towards a network, failing to do so in a timely manner is a breach of contract and would allow the ACC to go to Fox, NBC, or CBS.

That we do not know the minute details is really not an issue as the ACC is well within the timeline of developing a network (h/t to Lou). The ACC has been the stealthiest of conferences in many areas, this is not an exception.

Football maybe driving the bus in most eyes but over time, fans sway back and forth. Hoops is a significant boost to any contract. Another point for an sports network is what is available in the 8 months sans football (see LHN!). The ACC is the strongest conference in Olympic sports which will be the filler for 8 months of non-football programming. As such, baseball, lacrosse, other sports will garner more viewership and advertising dollars (see SEC). Having a strong balance in all sports will prove to be the most valuable way to go over the long haul.

(05-12-2016 11:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...53192.html

The News and Observer has much the same and along with the Greensboro N&R is the defacto paper of record for the league office.

Dave Teel would be the only media person that might have a greater depth of actual knowledge as he is sometimes used to dispense news. But it appears that something both lucrative and outside the box is in the works.

It's going to be a BS online "network".

Quote:More than once, though, he either spoke directly about or alluded to ESPN's ingenuity and creativeness. Swofford spoke about how negotiations these days are often less about traditional things – like rights fees – and more about “developing businesses together that are a partnership.”

Again, who knows what that means, exactly. From the sound of it, though, the conversations between the ACC and ESPN go much deeper than, “So, how about that network? Yay or nay?” And a network, in the traditional sense of the word, might be only a piece of what they're discussing at all.

Swofford made a point on Thursday to praise the ACC as a visionary in college sports. As proof, he pointed to league's early expansion from nine to 12 teams as evidence that the ACC knew where college sports would be headed, eventually.

You get the sense now that Swofford is attempting to build on the ACC's visionary status through whatever the next step is with TV – whether it's a dedicated channel or something else that takes advantage of emerging technology. What that next step looks like, though, is unclear.

The prospect of an ACC channel seems less likely now than it did three years ago, when it became a substantive topic after the league reached its grant of rights agreement. That doesn't mean that a channel won't come to be, or that something else won't take its place.

If we vote to extend the GOR for a BS ACC version of WatchESPN I'm dumping my IPTAY contributions next year and I'm not alone. No need to support an athletic program that signs a death pact with a bunch of schools with stage four lung cancer.

My 43 year old nephew Gary just died last week of Stage 4 lung cancer.

This situation with a bunch of college athletic departments fighting over TV money is not like that at all.

(05-13-2016 05:23 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  No way will an Online network like ESPN 3 ever workout. Have You ever gone to watch a big game or even 1 that isn't at a sports bar or out somewhere ? The Online games shown will require a computer hooked up to a TV and the Images suck as well as images freezing up and streaming losses. Sound also is behind or ahead of what You see. Restaurants and bars will lose millions of dollars with that crap. A Traditional ACC Network like the SEC & B1G are the Only way to go.

I use WatchESPN on my phone to watch ND baseball on ESPN3. I Chromecast it to my TV and have no problems at all.

(05-13-2016 07:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 05:23 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  No way will an Online network like ESPN 3 ever workout. Have You ever gone to watch a big game or even 1 that isn't at a sports bar or out somewhere ? The Online games shown will require a computer hooked up to a TV and the Images suck as well as images freezing up and streaming losses. Sound also is behind or ahead of what You see. Restaurants and bars will lose millions of dollars with that crap. A Traditional ACC Network like the SEC & B1G are the Only way to go.

I use WatchESPN on my phone to watch ND baseball on ESPN3. I Chromecast it to my TV and have no problems at all.

TWC is upgrading their systems to 300mbs. Google and AT&T are laying fiber everywhere. Comcast has developed a modem that will allow 1gb speeds on existing coax. Cell networks are cranking up their speeds. Seems like all the players are investing in streaming.

(05-13-2016 07:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 05:23 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  No way will an Online network like ESPN 3 ever workout. Have You ever gone to watch a big game or even 1 that isn't at a sports bar or out somewhere ? The Online games shown will require a computer hooked up to a TV and the Images suck as well as images freezing up and streaming losses. Sound also is behind or ahead of what You see. Restaurants and bars will lose millions of dollars with that crap. A Traditional ACC Network like the SEC & B1G are the Only way to go.

I use WatchESPN on my phone to watch ND baseball on ESPN3. I Chromecast it to my TV and have no problems at all.

That's all fine and dandy unless like Myself where We have a fairly large group of friends that get together and watch many of the games at a Taphouse pizzeria and a few other places throughout the year. Most restaurants and sports bars do not have Roku, Netflix or even broadcast in HD version for the added expense it requires. Some have Fox sports South and others don't. They have Fox sports Ohio. It all depends on the satellite system They use . So if You are one that watches it on a Cellphone or at Home, that's fine. the technology is there but if You go out to watch, unless places invest a lot more, there won't be broadcasts of games that are streamed. That's all I know.

I think it will be a traditional network with a streaming service available.

(05-13-2016 07:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 11:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 07:04 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...53192.html

The News and Observer has much the same and along with the Greensboro N&R is the defacto paper of record for the league office.

Dave Teel would be the only media person that might have a greater depth of actual knowledge as he is sometimes used to dispense news. But it appears that something both lucrative and outside the box is in the works.

It's going to be a BS online "network".

Quote:More than once, though, he either spoke directly about or alluded to ESPN's ingenuity and creativeness. Swofford spoke about how negotiations these days are often less about traditional things – like rights fees – and more about “developing businesses together that are a partnership.”

Again, who knows what that means, exactly. From the sound of it, though, the conversations between the ACC and ESPN go much deeper than, “So, how about that network? Yay or nay?” And a network, in the traditional sense of the word, might be only a piece of what they're discussing at all.

Swofford made a point on Thursday to praise the ACC as a visionary in college sports. As proof, he pointed to league's early expansion from nine to 12 teams as evidence that the ACC knew where college sports would be headed, eventually.

You get the sense now that Swofford is attempting to build on the ACC's visionary status through whatever the next step is with TV – whether it's a dedicated channel or something else that takes advantage of emerging technology. What that next step looks like, though, is unclear.

The prospect of an ACC channel seems less likely now than it did three years ago, when it became a substantive topic after the league reached its grant of rights agreement. That doesn't mean that a channel won't come to be, or that something else won't take its place.

If we vote to extend the GOR for a BS ACC version of WatchESPN I'm dumping my IPTAY contributions next year and I'm not alone. No need to support an athletic program that signs a death pact with a bunch of schools with stage four lung cancer.

My 43 year old nephew Gary just died last week of Stage 4 lung cancer.

This situation with a bunch of college athletic departments fighting over TV money is not like that at all.

Sorry to hear about your nephew Terry. He was really too young. Cancer is the scourge of our society.

(05-13-2016 06:11 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  This is probably more of the ACC schools pushing ESPN for ownership. Having observed the BTC, SECN and LHN, the ACC has probably determined that true partnership where both parties have a financial stake will be the most rewarding over the decades.

The risk for ESPN is that they have a proof of concept from a competitor, Fox, which has proven to be the most stable and most prosperous model. Should they lose the ACC to Fox, or another broadcaster willing to follow the same model, ESPN will lose out on profit.

Profit maximization is a goal of all parties. However, ESPN cannot be so fixated on their desire to maximize their profit that they lose all profit and to a competitor. ESPN is contractually bound to work towards a network, failing to do so in a timely manner is a breach of contract and would allow the ACC to go to Fox, NBC, or CBS.

That we do not know the minute details is really not an issue as the ACC is well within the timeline of developing a network (h/t to Lou). The ACC has been the stealthiest of conferences in many areas, this is not an exception.

I think you may really be on to something here with this ownership issue. Fox owns about half of theirs, PAC owns all of theirs, and the SEC and Texas don't own either of theirs, they are just paid for content.

This is especially interesting to think about if you're talking about multiple distribution channels...I expect there to be a standard cable network, but I also have suspicions that there will be an online channel for non-subscribers (think HBO Now), which ESPN has not previously had.

There could well be considerations of some ACC ownership, perhaps of the digital-only platform. This would especially make some sense given the Raycom relationship, the ACC is probably better positioned than any other conference to take content creation and delivery responsibilities for a digital offering.

So let's just say, ESPN licenses ACC content for the cable channel, just like the LHN or SECN. But let's just say for example, the ACC Now offering, to non-cable subscribers, was jointly owned by ESPN, the ACC and Raycom in some capacity. Now something like that would check a lot of boxes of what Swofford is talking about here, between technology and business partnering.

That could be a bit of a slick move if the ACC was somehow able to retain a stake in their streaming rights going forward like that, which might conceivably put the ACC in a position to make great gains on other conferences depending on how distribution models change/develop.

That kind of arrangement might lower production investment for ESPN (with Raycom absorbing some) and therefore lower some barriers at ESPN. Interesting to think about, and something like that might be the hail mary required to keep the ACC competitive.

That said, as for this statement:

ESPN is contractually bound to work towards a network, failing to do so in a timely manner is a breach of contract and would allow the ACC to go to Fox, NBC, or CBS.

I don't see any universe in which this is remotely true, that the ACC will be able to cut loose over ESPN's decision making. No way. We already know ESPN has an alternative compensation in place for not having a network, there's no way that there's any clause which will cut the ACC out of their contract altogether.

(05-13-2016 08:04 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 07:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 05:23 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  No way will an Online network like ESPN 3 ever workout. Have You ever gone to watch a big game or even 1 that isn't at a sports bar or out somewhere ? The Online games shown will require a computer hooked up to a TV and the Images suck as well as images freezing up and streaming losses. Sound also is behind or ahead of what You see. Restaurants and bars will lose millions of dollars with that crap. A Traditional ACC Network like the SEC & B1G are the Only way to go.

I use WatchESPN on my phone to watch ND baseball on ESPN3. I Chromecast it to my TV and have no problems at all.

TWC is upgrading their systems to 300mbs. Google and AT&T are laying fiber everywhere. Comcast has developed a modem that will allow 1gb speeds on existing coax. Cell networks are cranking up their speeds. Seems like all the players are investing in streaming.

Comcast is buying out TWC and Brighthouse. I predict within 5 years consumers start getting squeezed over bandwidth like never before.

(05-13-2016 06:11 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  ESPN is contractually bound to work towards a network, failing to do so in a timely manner is a breach of contract and would allow the ACC to go to Fox, NBC, or CBS.

Swofford said there is no deadline with ESPN
-- ajc

TAKE YOUR TIME