ACC Network Done Deal? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

ACC Network Done Deal?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dooley

Done with U-con athletics
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
9,963
Reaction Score
32,822
One of two things is happening in the ACC:

1. they are fervishly scrambling to convince Notre Dame to join full-time and bring in UConn as member 16 so that they can launch their ACC Network;

2. they are asking Tom Jurich if he can cook any more books and increase Louisville's census population by 10M people overnight.

My money is on #2.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
87,585
Reaction Score
327,057
IraSchoffel12:05pm via Twitter for iPad
Swofford says ACC spent "significant time" at ACC meetings talking about new channel. But nothing final yet.

McMurphyESPN12:05pm via TweetDeck
John Swofford: “We have continued to have very significant discussions. Spent a significant amount of time (on ACC Network)” but no new news

McMurphyESPN 12:37pm via TweetDeck
John Swofford on report that ESPN must pay ACC $45 million if ACC Network not in place by July: “I’m not going to comment on that"
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,504
Reaction Score
8,011
AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. -- As he sat down with a small media contingent here Thursday following the conference’s annual spring meetings, ACC Commissioner John Swofford began by saying the reporters could just copy and paste his previous non-committal comments about the league’s negotiations for an ACC television channel.

“I’m kidding,” he then deadpanned. “Sort of.”

Swofford, who has been the subject of growing skepticism for failing to broker a deal for a channel similar to the highly profitable networks developed by the SEC and Big Ten, insisted that the ACC and television partner ESPN are still “bullish” about their prospects in that regard. But until a deal is finalized, he said, nothing could be discussed publicly.

The ACC and ESPN have been in discussions about an ACC-specific channel for at least three years, but there has been little tangible progress -- at least that has been shared with the public. And in recent months, officials from a few member schools have expressed concerns about being left behind financially by other conferences.

When asked about those concerns Thursday, Swofford said he believes the conference athletic directors were comforted by what they heard from ESPN executives during meetings this week.

“That [comfort] comes with the development of what we anticipate doing,” Swofford said. “That’s why we’re doing it. That’s why ESPN is in the discussions with us. They like to make money, too. And we like to make money as well … and need to.

“I think everybody is extremely bullish [about the ACC’s future]. … We’ve just got to hit it right. We’ve got to make the right decisions. And 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.”

Swofford did hint that when the deal is done, it might not be as simple as establishing a channel on existing cable or satellite platforms.

“It might not look exactly the same,” he said. “The days of everything being just a rights-fee negotiation -- there still is some of that -- but there’s a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together under our partnership. As opposed to a guaranteed rights fee. …

While there has been discussion in the industry 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, Swofford said that is not a concern.

He said ESPN is a perfect partner in a changing media landscape.

“When you’re a partner with ESPN, they’re cutting-edge people,” Swofford said. “They always have been, and we don’t foresee that changing. … 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.
 

31GuardTrap

Bringing back the basics
Joined
Oct 30, 2014
Messages
1,180
Reaction Score
3,128
I don't see ESPN essentially throwing away 45 million dollars right now sooooooo.....me thinks "something" is going to happen soon.
 

TRest

Horrible
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
7,860
Reaction Score
22,373
I don't see ESPN essentially throwing away 45 million dollars right now sooooooo.....me thinks "something" is going to happen soon.
Has anyone actually seen this contract provision that calls for a payment in lieu of launching a network by a date certain? Or is this just internet rumors?
 

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
18,055
Reaction Score
130,843
A network would cost them considerably more than $45M.

This is not hard - ESPN already owns the ACC with the exception of content that was sold off to Raycom Sports.

ESPN would have to spend more money on an asset that they already control to buy back Raycom's rights - and the idea that Raycom is simply going to sell off its sole reason for existing is a little far-fetched.

The ACC really needed to set up the parameters for a network prior to their current deal and they were too shortsighted to do it. They now need a large publicly-traded corporation to act in something other than its own self-interest to create a network for them "just because".

They should not hold their breath.
 

pepband99

Resident TV nerd
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,718
Reaction Score
9,513
A network would cost them considerably more than $45M.

This is not hard - ESPN already owns the ACC with the exception of content that was sold off to Raycom Sports.

ESPN would have to spend more money on an asset that they already control to buy back Raycom's rights - and the idea that Raycom is simply going to sell off its sole reason for existing is a little far-fetched.

The ACC really needed to set up the parameters for a network prior to their current deal and they were too shortsighted to do it. They now need a large publicly-traded corporation to act in something other than its own self-interest to create a network for them "just because".

They should not hold their breath.

Bingo.

Even weirder is the lack of questioning on Swofford's conflict of interest with the Raycom rights, and his son.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,504
Reaction Score
8,011
It has been alluded to by the Commissioner in the past...


“If we’re going to do this,” Swofford said, “we need to do it in the right way from the beginning that gives us the opportunity to have long-term success, and that’s what we’re trying to do and time it in a way so the distribution can be good, if not great, coming out, if we go this route. The other alternative is larger rights fees (from ESPN).”
 

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
18,055
Reaction Score
130,843
The rights' fees do not grow - if it exists, it is a one-time payment.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,504
Reaction Score
8,011
Raycom has been a syndication partner of the ACC for a long time, back to 1979...Raycom had the ACC basketball tournament and held a limited football and basketball package.

The ACC has no contract with Raycom,,,it sold the media rights to ESPN..who sublet some content to Raycom for distribution.

But no doubt, Raycom had a most favored nation status when ESPN looked to sublet material.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,504
Reaction Score
8,011
The rights' fees do not grow - if it exists, it is a one-time payment.

Maybe...a case could be made that the contract's called for five year "look ins" also provide an opportunity for increased rights fees.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,504
Reaction Score
8,011
I think this sentence says a lot....

“It might not look exactly the same,” he said. “The days of everything being just a rights-fee negotiation -- there still is some of that -- but there’s a lot more negotiations about developing businesses together under our partnership. As opposed to a guaranteed rights fee. …
 

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
18,055
Reaction Score
130,843
Maybe...a case could be made that the contract's called for five year "look ins" also provide an opportunity for increased rights fees.

Why would they increase it?
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,504
Reaction Score
8,011
Fishy...I never could even figure out why they give a CEO a million dollar raise when the stock has tanked and the company's performance is down.

I don't think anyone has seen the media contract since it is between two non public entities and not subject to FOIA. We know that there are "look ins", we just don't know what the contract says about them.

Sometimes, in a long term contract, the market may move and one or both of the parties writes in a built in look in as a protection. The market is reset upward...or maybe downward, but the contract may contain an adjustment clause.

The question is..."If there are look ins, why?"
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,321
Reaction Score
46,508
Fishy...I never could even figure out why they give a CEO a million dollar raise when the stock has tanked and the company's performance is down.

I don't think anyone has seen the media contract since it is between two non public entities and not subject to FOIA. We know that there are "look ins", we just don't know what the contract says about them.

Sometimes, in a long term contract, the market may move and one or both of the parties writes in a built in look in as a protection. The market is reset upward...or maybe downward, but the contract may contain an adjustment clause.

The question is..."If there are look ins, why?"

When a company uses it cash position to buyback stock, the board loves it.
 

HuskyHawk

The triumphant return of the Blues Brothers.
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
32,012
Reaction Score
82,308
Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter 2h2 hours ago
Here's everything John Swofford said about the ACC's TV situation. He said more than you might think, actually:

Here's everything John Swofford said about ACC TV situation

I think the odds of a dedicated cable channel are close to zero. I think the odds of increasing the streaming "ACC Network" and rebroadcasting more of that content on existing ESPN channels is pretty high. I can see ESPN using league branded content to gain subscribers for ESPNU/N, and using ESPNU or ESPNN to broadcast "ACC Network" and "Big 12 Network" content (and LHN), without creating dedicated channel.

In short, I can imagine ESPN looking at its two floundering channels, and inventory it has from the ACC and Big 12, and Texas, and finding a way to drive fans of all of those schools to demand carriage of ESPNU (maybe rebrand ESPN News to ESPN U2). It could probably provide a similar "network" to both leagues.

I also think Fox may regret the Big Ten deal. They need it to elevate themselves in the minds of sports fans, just like NBC needed to overpay for Thursday NFL games. But the deal after this deal is going down. It was a short term deal for a reason.
 

CL82

NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,950
Reaction Score
208,695
I think the odds of a dedicated cable channel are close to zero. I think the odds of increasing the streaming "ACC Network" and rebroadcasting more of that content on existing ESPN channels is pretty high. I can see ESPN using league branded content to gain subscribers for ESPNU/N, and using ESPNU or ESPNN to broadcast "ACC Network" and "Big 12 Network" content (and LHN), without creating dedicated channel.

In short, I can imagine ESPN looking at its two floundering channels, and inventory it has from the ACC and Big 12, and Texas, and finding a way to drive fans of all of those schools to demand carriage of ESPNU (maybe rebrand ESPN News to ESPN U2). It could probably provide a similar "network" to both leagues.

I also think Fox may regret the Big Ten deal. They need it to elevate themselves in the minds of sports fans, just like NBC needed to overpay for Thursday NFL games. But the deal after this deal is going down. It was a short term deal for a reason.
Bingo!

“So with technology and so forth, you want to be with people that are progressive and that have flexibility, that are willing to adapt,” Swofford said. “And I think that’s who our partner is. And so we’re bullish about it, and I’d say they’re bullish about it. It might not look exactly the same.”


It looks like he's grooming conference members to view online streaming as a dedicated "network" equivalent.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
4,991
Reaction Score
19,595
I think the odds of a dedicated cable channel are close to zero. I think the odds of increasing the streaming "ACC Network" and rebroadcasting more of that content on existing ESPN channels is pretty high. I can see ESPN using league branded content to gain subscribers for ESPNU/N, and using ESPNU or ESPNN to broadcast "ACC Network" and "Big 12 Network" content (and LHN), without creating dedicated channel.

In short, I can imagine ESPN looking at its two floundering channels, and inventory it has from the ACC and Big 12, and Texas, and finding a way to drive fans of all of those schools to demand carriage of ESPNU (maybe rebrand ESPN News to ESPN U2). It could probably provide a similar "network" to both leagues.

I also think Fox may regret the Big Ten deal. They need it to elevate themselves in the minds of sports fans, just like NBC needed to overpay for Thursday NFL games. But the deal after this deal is going down. It was a short term deal for a reason.

I think people need to stop thinking that ESPN is going to repurpose/rebrand ESPNU and ESPN News. These are successful channels that each bring in almost $200 million of revenues per year and are in ~74 million households each. LHN is now about breakeven so it's not a big loss maker for ESPN. Perhaps ESPN Classic, which is only available in ~25 million homes and has been in decline for years, could become an ACC Network.

In my opinion, an "ACC Network" can only come about as a new channel (highly doubtful), repositioning ESPN Classic, or as some sort of streaming network like ESPN3 (probable). It does make sense for ESPN to experiment with a streaming network with ACC content and see if it could generate sizable revenues as it wouldn't be too costly to start up.
 

HuskyHawk

The triumphant return of the Blues Brothers.
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
32,012
Reaction Score
82,308
Bingo!

“So with technology and so forth, you want to be with people that are progressive and that have flexibility, that are willing to adapt,” Swofford said. “And I think that’s who our partner is. And so we’re bullish about it, and I’d say they’re bullish about it. It might not look exactly the same.”


It looks like he's grooming conference members to view online streaming as a dedicated "network" equivalent.

I think "just streaming" doesn't get it done. I think ESPN can re-purpose ESPN U as a dedicated channel, but across two conferences. Maybe rebrand ESPN News at the same time. If every ACC or Big 12 game on those channels has "ACC Network" and "Big 12 Network" branding, and if they make it clear that you need ESPNU to see that content (even when streamed, like ESPN3 requires ESPN), then they can drive carriage fees for ESPNU/N and have some money to send to the conferences. It would also allow the LHN to live alongside a B12 Network.

My guess is the Pac 12 Network gets converted to this model eventually.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
1,998
Reaction Score
1,719

The ACC played the CR gane well when it raided and killed the Big East. It's had played it poorly since, and both times we got hurt.

Letting BC blackball us was short sighted and dumb.
Picking Louisville over us (thanks FSU and Clemson) was shorter sighted and dumber. The B1G showed that the correct way to play the CR game was to expand territory, even if that meant adding less than stellar football programs. The ACC didn't learn from that and instead took what it thought was the best football program available. Nevermind that Louisville isn't the number team in it's own state.

I'm not saying that the ACC would have a network right now if they had added us a few years ago, but I am also not convinced that Swofford is as astute at David Teel thinks he is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
636
Guests online
4,246
Total visitors
4,882

Forum statistics

Threads
156,980
Messages
4,075,190
Members
9,965
Latest member
deltaop99


Top Bottom