(08-08-2023 01:37 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:49 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:32 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:27 PM)penguino Wrote:  I don’t think you get the whole state, you get the market the school is in. So they would get the Bay Area at the higher rate, the rest of the state would stay the same.

The ACC network is done on a state by state basis. The problem is that Stanford and Cal carry a smaller share of their state than any other ACC member currently carries of their state. (Except for possibly Wake Forest, which is one of four members in North Carolina.) With cord cutting making cable companies more cautious, the cable companies might not allow themselves to be strong armed as easily as they were at the time Rutgers was invited to the Big Ten. So it's not clear if the cable companies could be strong armed into gorging customers in California for the ACCN.

The ACC and ESPN's main leverage would just be that they've already set the precedent to charge by the state, so the cable companies will just have to continue following the precedent now.

It's perfectly clear that the California Cable companies were strong-armed into signing the contract, unless Skipper was flat out lying about it. What is not clear is how much time passes in between those schools joining the ACC and thus triggering the clause to increase rates, and the next time the contracts with the various cable companies are up for renegotiation. I don't see how the above poster came up with $130m extra from 10.8m households though. It would be:

$1.25 extra x 10.8m households = $13.5m per month
$13.5m x 12 months = $162m per year

1/2 of that goes to ESPN and half to the ACC. Anybody who is curious about why ESPN would be happy about this eventuality need look no further.

Your math assumes they are starting from 0. They get something from every subscriber already. I'm not sure if that's $.20 or $.50 but they are getting paid.

I think I saw in another thread (JR posted it?) that the current rate for ACC network is $0.25, and this is talking about a bump to $1.50. That would be an increase of $1.25.

Allegedly the B1G carriage fees in the NY/NJ area went from $0.10 per month to $1.50 per month when they added Rutgers.

(08-08-2023 01:42 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 01:37 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:49 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:32 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:27 PM)penguino Wrote:  I don’t think you get the whole state, you get the market the school is in. So they would get the Bay Area at the higher rate, the rest of the state would stay the same.

The ACC network is done on a state by state basis. The problem is that Stanford and Cal carry a smaller share of their state than any other ACC member currently carries of their state. (Except for possibly Wake Forest, which is one of four members in North Carolina.) With cord cutting making cable companies more cautious, the cable companies might not allow themselves to be strong armed as easily as they were at the time Rutgers was invited to the Big Ten. So it's not clear if the cable companies could be strong armed into gorging customers in California for the ACCN.

The ACC and ESPN's main leverage would just be that they've already set the precedent to charge by the state, so the cable companies will just have to continue following the precedent now.

It's perfectly clear that the California Cable companies were strong-armed into signing the contract, unless Skipper was flat out lying about it. What is not clear is how much time passes in between those schools joining the ACC and thus triggering the clause to increase rates, and the next time the contracts with the various cable companies are up for renegotiation. I don't see how the above poster came up with $130m extra from 10.8m households though. It would be:

$1.25 extra x 10.8m households = $13.5m per month
$13.5m x 12 months = $162m per year

1/2 of that goes to ESPN and half to the ACC. Anybody who is curious about why ESPN would be happy about this eventuality need look no further.

Your math assumes they are starting from 0. They get something from every subscriber already. I'm not sure if that's $.20 or $.50 but they are getting paid.

I think I saw in another thread (JR posted it?) that the current rate for ACC network is $0.25, and this is talking about a bump to $1.50. That would be an increase of $1.25.

The only thing I found was that the average is $.67.
Some estimates were $.25 to $1.30 but that was before it was released.

(08-08-2023 12:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:58 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:56 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  No. It’s cable companies that are going to pay more money to ESPN. Customers in CA would pay exact money for ACCN (if they alreay have subscriptions).

So, businesses don't pass on costs to customers?

Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do about this whole inflation thing then.

I think "exact" was a type for "extra"
Customers in CA would pay an extra $1 or $2 on their monthly bill (for ACCn).

But this also means it's moved from a higher or sports only tier to a lower tier that's accessible to more folks.

(08-08-2023 02:23 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:58 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:56 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  No. It’s cable companies that are going to pay more money to ESPN. Customers in CA would pay exact money for ACCN (if they alreay have subscriptions).

So, businesses don't pass on costs to customers?

Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do about this whole inflation thing then.

I think "exact" was a type for "extra"
Customers in CA would pay an extra $1 or $2 on their monthly bill (for ACCn).

But this also means it's moved from a higher or sports only tier to a lower tier that's accessible to more folks.

ACC Network is in something like 50M homes. That's pretty close to the ceiling these days. It's on basic cable, just a question of on basic cable for quarters or dollars.

I think it's closer to 90 million homes

(08-08-2023 02:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:23 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:58 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:56 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  No. It’s cable companies that are going to pay more money to ESPN. Customers in CA would pay exact money for ACCN (if they alreay have subscriptions).

So, businesses don't pass on costs to customers?

Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do about this whole inflation thing then.

I think "exact" was a type for "extra"
Customers in CA would pay an extra $1 or $2 on their monthly bill (for ACCn).

But this also means it's moved from a higher or sports only tier to a lower tier that's accessible to more folks.

ACC Network is in something like 50M homes. That's pretty close to the ceiling these days. It's on basic cable, just a question of on basic cable for quarters or dollars.

On the east coast, you're correct. West of the Mississippi, carriage is closer to Pac-12 levels.

(08-08-2023 02:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it's closer to 90 million homes

C'mon man. ESPN is only in like 74 million homes.

(08-08-2023 04:57 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it's closer to 90 million homes

C'mon man. ESPN is only in like 74 million homes.

"In the ACC Network's first athletic year, ESPN successfully negotiated the network's carriage to 70 million households on all major cable and satellite TV providers, with the sole exception of Comcast.[29] The holdout, Comcast, which provides cable television to 19 million households as of Q3 2020,[30] claimed in September 2019 that ESPN was not allowing them to carry the network at a "fair and reasonable cost" to their customers.[31] Following a two-year holdout, ESPN and Comcast eventually came to a deal to carry ACC Network on Xfinity in November 2021.[32]"

70 plus Comcast and a couple smaller outlets. I believe 90 is close.

(08-08-2023 05:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:57 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it's closer to 90 million homes

C'mon man. ESPN is only in like 74 million homes.

"In the ACC Network's first athletic year, ESPN successfully negotiated the network's carriage to 70 million households on all major cable and satellite TV providers, with the sole exception of Comcast.[29] The holdout, Comcast, which provides cable television to 19 million households as of Q3 2020,[30] claimed in September 2019 that ESPN was not allowing them to carry the network at a "fair and reasonable cost" to their customers.[31] Following a two-year holdout, ESPN and Comcast eventually came to a deal to carry ACC Network on Xfinity in November 2021.[32]"

70 plus Comcast and a couple smaller outlets. I believe 90 is close.

So those numbers are mostly from 2019. The universe of cable subscribers has shrank since then.

(08-08-2023 05:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:57 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it's closer to 90 million homes

C'mon man. ESPN is only in like 74 million homes.

"In the ACC Network's first athletic year, ESPN successfully negotiated the network's carriage to 70 million households on all major cable and satellite TV providers, with the sole exception of Comcast.[29] The holdout, Comcast, which provides cable television to 19 million households as of Q3 2020,[30] claimed in September 2019 that ESPN was not allowing them to carry the network at a "fair and reasonable cost" to their customers.[31] Following a two-year holdout, ESPN and Comcast eventually came to a deal to carry ACC Network on Xfinity in November 2021.[32]"

70 plus Comcast and a couple smaller outlets. I believe 90 is close.

You do realize that seems to be an older quote and cable is bleeding customers monthly (and also that if you're going to directly quote a source, you should link it).

"Pitaro has reason to be worried. With millions of TV consumers cutting the cord, ESPN’s footprint is down to 74 million homes from 100 million two decades ago."

https://frontofficesports.com/espn-touts...e%20years.

(08-08-2023 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:57 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it's closer to 90 million homes

C'mon man. ESPN is only in like 74 million homes.

"In the ACC Network's first athletic year, ESPN successfully negotiated the network's carriage to 70 million households on all major cable and satellite TV providers, with the sole exception of Comcast.[29] The holdout, Comcast, which provides cable television to 19 million households as of Q3 2020,[30] claimed in September 2019 that ESPN was not allowing them to carry the network at a "fair and reasonable cost" to their customers.[31] Following a two-year holdout, ESPN and Comcast eventually came to a deal to carry ACC Network on Xfinity in November 2021.[32]"

70 plus Comcast and a couple smaller outlets. I believe 90 is close.

So those numbers are mostly from 2019. The universe of cable subscribers has shrank since then.

The SECN is in 70 million so I think they wrote that paragraph wrong. It's likely 70 million and they meant to distinguish that Comcast was part of that number but they didn't word it well.

(08-08-2023 05:12 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:57 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 02:43 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it's closer to 90 million homes

C'mon man. ESPN is only in like 74 million homes.

"In the ACC Network's first athletic year, ESPN successfully negotiated the network's carriage to 70 million households on all major cable and satellite TV providers, with the sole exception of Comcast.[29] The holdout, Comcast, which provides cable television to 19 million households as of Q3 2020,[30] claimed in September 2019 that ESPN was not allowing them to carry the network at a "fair and reasonable cost" to their customers.[31] Following a two-year holdout, ESPN and Comcast eventually came to a deal to carry ACC Network on Xfinity in November 2021.[32]"

70 plus Comcast and a couple smaller outlets. I believe 90 is close.

So those numbers are mostly from 2019. The universe of cable subscribers has shrank since then.

The SECN is in 70 million so I think they wrote that paragraph wrong. It's likely 70 million and they meant to distinguish that Comcast was part of that number but they didn't word it well.

No, you're just using numbers from 2019.

ESPN is down to 71M. SEC network isn't at 70m anymore.

(08-08-2023 01:42 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 01:37 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:49 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:32 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 12:27 PM)penguino Wrote:  I don’t think you get the whole state, you get the market the school is in. So they would get the Bay Area at the higher rate, the rest of the state would stay the same.

The ACC network is done on a state by state basis. The problem is that Stanford and Cal carry a smaller share of their state than any other ACC member currently carries of their state. (Except for possibly Wake Forest, which is one of four members in North Carolina.) With cord cutting making cable companies more cautious, the cable companies might not allow themselves to be strong armed as easily as they were at the time Rutgers was invited to the Big Ten. So it's not clear if the cable companies could be strong armed into gorging customers in California for the ACCN.

The ACC and ESPN's main leverage would just be that they've already set the precedent to charge by the state, so the cable companies will just have to continue following the precedent now.

It's perfectly clear that the California Cable companies were strong-armed into signing the contract, unless Skipper was flat out lying about it. What is not clear is how much time passes in between those schools joining the ACC and thus triggering the clause to increase rates, and the next time the contracts with the various cable companies are up for renegotiation. I don't see how the above poster came up with $130m extra from 10.8m households though. It would be:

$1.25 extra x 10.8m households = $13.5m per month
$13.5m x 12 months = $162m per year

1/2 of that goes to ESPN and half to the ACC. Anybody who is curious about why ESPN would be happy about this eventuality need look no further.

Your math assumes they are starting from 0. They get something from every subscriber already. I'm not sure if that's $.20 or $.50 but they are getting paid.

I think I saw in another thread (JR posted it?) that the current rate for ACC network is $0.25, and this is talking about a bump to $1.50. That would be an increase of $1.25.

Well, speaking of $0.25, I wish I had just $0.25 for all of the supposed in market and out of market rates for the conference networks I’ve seen be posted on here. I don’t think I’d have to work another day in my life.

Let’s just leave it at the universal consensus: the in market rates are a lot more expensive, probably by a factor of at least 5.

There are some “industry analysts” who have used publicly available data to try to estimate the in market and out of market rates, but even their figures are just estimates. And most people on CSNBBS don’t even seem to be doing that: they just seem to be repeating some figure that they’re pretty sure, but not positive, they saw somebody else post 3 months ago.

(08-08-2023 05:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:12 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 04:57 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  C'mon man. ESPN is only in like 74 million homes.

"In the ACC Network's first athletic year, ESPN successfully negotiated the network's carriage to 70 million households on all major cable and satellite TV providers, with the sole exception of Comcast.[29] The holdout, Comcast, which provides cable television to 19 million households as of Q3 2020,[30] claimed in September 2019 that ESPN was not allowing them to carry the network at a "fair and reasonable cost" to their customers.[31] Following a two-year holdout, ESPN and Comcast eventually came to a deal to carry ACC Network on Xfinity in November 2021.[32]"

70 plus Comcast and a couple smaller outlets. I believe 90 is close.

So those numbers are mostly from 2019. The universe of cable subscribers has shrank since then.

The SECN is in 70 million so I think they wrote that paragraph wrong. It's likely 70 million and they meant to distinguish that Comcast was part of that number but they didn't word it well.

No, you're just using numbers from 2019.

ESPN is down to 71M. SEC network isn't at 70m anymore.

Be mad about it then. Those are the numbers that are available publicly.

(08-08-2023 05:51 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:12 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  "In the ACC Network's first athletic year, ESPN successfully negotiated the network's carriage to 70 million households on all major cable and satellite TV providers, with the sole exception of Comcast.[29] The holdout, Comcast, which provides cable television to 19 million households as of Q3 2020,[30] claimed in September 2019 that ESPN was not allowing them to carry the network at a "fair and reasonable cost" to their customers.[31] Following a two-year holdout, ESPN and Comcast eventually came to a deal to carry ACC Network on Xfinity in November 2021.[32]"

70 plus Comcast and a couple smaller outlets. I believe 90 is close.

So those numbers are mostly from 2019. The universe of cable subscribers has shrank since then.

The SECN is in 70 million so I think they wrote that paragraph wrong. It's likely 70 million and they meant to distinguish that Comcast was part of that number but they didn't word it well.

No, you're just using numbers from 2019.

ESPN is down to 71M. SEC network isn't at 70m anymore.

Be mad about it then. Those are the numbers that are available publicly.

Those are the OLD numbers that are available publicly. I literally posted newer numbers for you. Cable is bleeding. Heck, ESPN lost almost 1 million subs alone in January of this year.

(08-08-2023 05:51 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:12 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:01 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  "In the ACC Network's first athletic year, ESPN successfully negotiated the network's carriage to 70 million households on all major cable and satellite TV providers, with the sole exception of Comcast.[29] The holdout, Comcast, which provides cable television to 19 million households as of Q3 2020,[30] claimed in September 2019 that ESPN was not allowing them to carry the network at a "fair and reasonable cost" to their customers.[31] Following a two-year holdout, ESPN and Comcast eventually came to a deal to carry ACC Network on Xfinity in November 2021.[32]"

70 plus Comcast and a couple smaller outlets. I believe 90 is close.

So those numbers are mostly from 2019. The universe of cable subscribers has shrank since then.

The SECN is in 70 million so I think they wrote that paragraph wrong. It's likely 70 million and they meant to distinguish that Comcast was part of that number but they didn't word it well.

No, you're just using numbers from 2019.

ESPN is down to 71M. SEC network isn't at 70m anymore.

Be mad about it then. Those are the numbers that are available publicly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/busin...isney.html

Last year around 71 million United States households paid for a television package that included ESPN, and those cable providers, in turn, paid ESPN an average of $8.81 per month for each home, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

....a tidbit that I want to try to remember:
Disney’s family of sports channels currently earn somewhere north of $12 per month in affiliate fees for each cable subscription, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

That's ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN-U, SEC Network, ACC Network.

A lot of the numbers thrown about in this thread seem way off. Here's an article discussing the extra revenue the Big Ten Network is expected to receive from adding USCLA -- the extra revenue moving from out-of footprint to in-footprint. The estimate is around $20M/year. That's a far cry from the estimated $50M/yr from the Rutgers add alone, showing just how much carriage revenue has shrunk.

Someone else might be able to compare ACC vs BTN revenue here, but if the LA market "only" garners $20M/yr, hard to see how the SF market will get more than $10-12M. Less than $1M per team.

(08-08-2023 06:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:51 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:12 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  So those numbers are mostly from 2019. The universe of cable subscribers has shrank since then.

The SECN is in 70 million so I think they wrote that paragraph wrong. It's likely 70 million and they meant to distinguish that Comcast was part of that number but they didn't word it well.

No, you're just using numbers from 2019.

ESPN is down to 71M. SEC network isn't at 70m anymore.

Be mad about it then. Those are the numbers that are available publicly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/busin...isney.html

Last year around 71 million United States households paid for a television package that included ESPN, and those cable providers, in turn, paid ESPN an average of $8.81 per month for each home, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

....a tidbit that I want to try to remember:
Disney’s family of sports channels currently earn somewhere north of $12 per month in affiliate fees for each cable subscription, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

That's ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN-U, SEC Network, ACC Network.

Not all cable packages include ESPN-U, SECN, or ACCN. A lot of times that’s an upgrade or on a separate sports PAC. And I think basic/skinny packages have become more common as a proportion of cable subscriptions in the past few years. The number of subs for these sub channels is going to be considerably less than ESPN proper.

(08-08-2023 07:30 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  A lot of the numbers thrown about in this thread seem way off. Here's an article discussing the extra revenue the Big Ten Network is expected to receive from adding USCLA -- the extra revenue moving from out-of footprint to in-footprint. The estimate is around $20M/year. That's a far cry from the estimated $50M/yr from the Rutgers add alone, showing just how much carriage revenue has shrunk.

Someone else might be able to compare ACC vs BTN revenue here, but if the LA market "only" garners $20M/yr, hard to see how the SF market will get more than $10-12M. Less than $1M per team.

The BTN has market escalators. The ACCN has escalators for entire states.