ACC Network? Ah, no.

[zls44]

Basically what anyone with any intelligence could have deduced- it ain't happening.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx

The main roadblock is rights. When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Even if the conference is able to buy back those rights from Raycom, a second roadblock remains. Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint. Live local sports programming is important to Fox’s RSNs, and they are not likely to give up those games cheaply.

The games that stay with Raycom make up the ACC’s long-running syndicated package that is distributed to more than 50 million households on over-the-air networks, and reaches 25 of the top 50 U.S. TV markets.

Those deals extend through 2027.

 

[specialisthusky]

This was never going to happen. I'm glad someone smarter and more read than me has finally explained it to the Acc Homers who were still holding hope for there own network. Every critic said the third tier issue wad the biggest problem with the new Acc contract and now we see the affects of the sweetheart deal Swofford gave junior.

Maybe when notre dame joins....

 

[UPitt]

Basically what anyone with any intelligence could have deduced- it ain't happening.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx

The main ro is rights. When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Even if the conference is able to buy back those rights from Raycom, a second ro remains. Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint. Live local sports programming is important to Fox’s RSNs, and they are not likely to give up those games cheaply.

The games that stay with Raycom make up the ACC’s long-running syndicated package that is distributed to more than 50 million households on over-the-air networks, and reaches 25 of the top 50 U.S. TV markets.

Those deals extend through 2027.

Yep, not happening any time soon. There has been a lot of talk on ACC boards today about this. The GOR was the first step. Next, ESPN stated it is interested if it can by back the media rights. Those rights are tied up till 2027. It took about 4 years to buy back media rights and organize the SEC network. Even if the ACC shares resources and facilities with the SEC network as rumored, it would takes years and be extremely costly to buy back media rights and organize a network for the ACC. I think ESPN will use the SEC network as a trial before expending too many resources into an ACC network.

Basically, the GOR and TV contracts could easily expire before this launches.

 

[zls44]

Basically, the GOR and TV contracts could easily expire before this launches.

Unless you are on the Syracuse board, where it's happening any minute!!!

 

[Fishy]

It's a non-starter and they know it.

Past the fact that they would have to get the rights back, they would be sailing that network in a massive headwind called the SEC.

The Big Ten ate the mid-Atlantic and the northeast is not going to buy a southern network...and realistically, outside of Virginia and North Carolina, the ACC exists in the shadow of the Southeastern Conference. Cable customers and operators in those southern states are not going to want to pony up for a second (lesser) network.

 

[Chuck]

As usual, I think this is actually bad for us. I don't think the ACC will ever call our name, but I would think an ACC network would've been a glimmer of hope. These horrible networks need content. The ACC could've used UConn's good non-revenue (and women's basketball) sports to counter some of the garbage they would be airing.

Not to hijack this thread, but is anyone going to pay one dime extra for a sports network that doesn't include UConn? I get the Big 10 network currently as part of fios. It's never been on except the time my 6 year old got all excited that he found a football game to watch. It was a repeat of Wisconsin v. Nebraska on a Saturday afternoon. He was mad when I told him it was played months ago. I live in NJ and actually have an RU graduate degree and root for them second only to UConn. I will not pay a penny extra for the Big 10 Network if fios tries to change the fee.

 

[uconnell]

I already get NESN and BTN which I never watch. I agree why watch any network that doesn't have UCONN?

 

[SubbaBub]

B1G can get $2-3/mo minimum in CT if UConn is a member. TV dollars are not our problem.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

Basically what anyone with any intelligence could have deduced- it ain't happening.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx

The main ro is rights. When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Even if the conference is able to buy back those rights from Raycom, a second ro remains. Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint. Live local sports programming is important to Fox’s RSNs, and they are not likely to give up those games cheaply.

The games that stay with Raycom make up the ACC’s long-running syndicated package that is distributed to more than 50 million households on over-the-air networks, and reaches 25 of the top 50 U.S. TV markets.

Those deals extend through 2027.

You know, the Raycom deal hurt UConn badly.

This is exactly what Florida State was complaining about to Tobacco Road. Louisville was the lever to send a to Tobacco Road because of the Raycom stuff.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

As usual, I think this is actually bad for us. I don't think the ACC will ever call our name, but I would think an ACC network would've been a glimmer of hope. These horrible networks need content. The ACC could've used UConn's good non-revenue (and women's basketball) sports to counter some of the garbage they would be airing.

Not to hijack this thread, but is anyone going to pay one dime extra for a sports network that doesn't include UConn? I get the Big 10 network currently as part of fios. It's never been on except the time my 6 year old got all excited that he found a football game to watch. It was a repeat of Wisconsin v. Nebraska on a Saturday afternoon. He was mad when I told him it was played months ago. I live in NJ and actually have an RU graduate degree and root for them second only to UConn. I will not pay a penny extra for the Big 10 Network if fios tries to change the fee.

I got BTN on Comcast in CA because it was part of their sports tier package ($8 per month). We watch the Tennis channel and the only way to get that channel is by buying this sports tier package. I hate the fact that part of my money goes to the BTN, but we got no choice. I don't recall watching the BTN more than 2 mins and each time it was by accident. If UCONN is not part of it, I could care less. If UCONN is part of it, I would pay $5 per month just to watch UCONN.

Like others said, BTN can easily get $3 per sub in CT. That could translate to $3.5M per month or $42M per year for the BTN. Perhaps UCONN should get commitments from the cable companies for BTN and then talk to Delenay and the B1G. CT and New England could easily turn into a goldmine for BTN in the long run.

 

[whaler11]

There is absolutely no way in the world the BTN could get $3 a subscriber in CT across the board. It's an insane suggestion.

 

[whaler11]

UConn averages about a 5 rating in Hartford on less than a million TV homes for basketball. Yet the BTN can get 3 times the subscriber fee they get in Michigan or Nebraska or Ohio. Where does this craziness come from?

A 5 rating is nice. It's also less than 50k homes.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

UConn averages about a 5 rating in Hartford on less than a million TV homes for basketball. Yet the BTN can get 3 times the subscriber fee they get in Michigan or Nebraska or Ohio. Where does this craziness come from?

A 5 rating is nice. It's also less than 50k homes.

I suggested it because that's one of the sure ways to get into the BTN. The state will have to come up with a system to get BTN on the basic tier if UCONN is part of it. Due to CT's smaller population, BTN simplely has to charge more $$$ per household. BTN is all about money and the only way for UCONN to get in is to add enough $$$$$ to the BTN coffer. There is no other way around it.

 

[whaler11]

I suggested it because that's one of the sure ways to get into the BTN. The state will have to come up with a system to get BTN on the basic tier if UCONN is part of it. Due to CT's smaller population, BTN simplely has to charge more $ per household. BTN is all about money and the only way for UCONN to get in is to add enough $ to the BTN coffer. There is no other way around it.

People won't pay it. The systems won't support it. You may as well say it's $10 a month and it's $120 million a year in revenue - it's just unrealistic.

 

[B1GALUM]

Basically what anyone with any intelligence could have deduced- it ain't happening.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/20/Media/ACC-net.aspx

The main ro is rights. When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.

Even if the conference is able to buy back those rights from Raycom, a second ro remains. Raycom sublicensed 17 of those football games and 25 of those basketball games to Fox, which carries the games on its regional sports networks throughout the ACC footprint. Live local sports programming is important to Fox’s RSNs, and they are not likely to give up those games cheaply.

The games that stay with Raycom make up the ACC’s long-running syndicated package that is distributed to more than 50 million households on over-the-air networks, and reaches 25 of the top 50 U.S. TV markets.

Those deals extend through 2027.

I would be interested to know what Andy Haggard of FSU thinks about this situation since the idea of an ACC network was one factor that won him over.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/04/2871296/inside-the-deal-how-john-swofford.html

During the meeting, Swofford and Jordan told Haggard what the grant of rights could do for the league. There was talk about an ACC channel down the line and the revenue that could generate.
“The connection with the ACC and ESPN (won me over),” Haggard said. “The idea of a possible television (channel) with the ACC, that it would be $5 million more a year, if we could do that. And probably more than that.”

There are certainly a few FSU fans who are not happy about it:
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/5/20/4348638/acc-network-not-happening-anytime-soon
No division realignment, no ACC network, and no unequal revenue sharing (beyond travel cost adjustments)

Looks like we’ve been sold another Swofford special.
No, no, this is all part of the secret: when we get no ACC network because of Raycom...

it’s because we’re really getting an ACC network because of Raycom. Couldn’t be anything else, can’t be that FSU signed away rights for same ol’ same ol’ ACC. Must be that we’re not part of the secret ACC illuminati that makes down up, black white, and every move Swoffy makes somehow always doing right by the ACC’s chief draw.

​

 

[UCFBfan]

There is absolutely no way in the world the BTN could get $3 a subscriber in CT across the board. It's an insane suggestion.

What did SNY get? I'm asking this seriously because as soon as the UConn/SNY deal was announced a few years back, every cable provider that didn't current;y have SNY, carried it. I know we didn't get it on Cox in Southington and then UConn made the deal and we got it. I believe SNY is now on every cable provider in the state. I dunno if that would be an equivalent comparison to what the BTN could do? I understand we're a small state, but we're a small state with a desire to see our Huskies and would be willing to pay a little more to do so.

 

[Fishy]

YES gets about $3.20. I think SNY gets in the mid-$2 range. The Big Ten gets less than a buck a subscriber within their footprint and about ten cents outside it. (So says a Google search - if that's wrong, tell me.)

There are 1.14M households in Connecticut and about 85% are cable subscribers - 969,000 cable-subscribin' households. How many of those suscribe to a tier that brings in the Big Ten? Let's use 70% for kicks - that is probably high. Or low. I have no idea.

Of the 969,000 households, 296,000 are in Fairfield. With Rutgers now in the Big Ten, given that Fairfield is in the NYC DMA, imagine that the Big Ten will get the .90 per household that subscribes to whatever premium tier. (296,000*.70=~207,000*$.90=$186,000 per month.)

Now, pretend that the Big Ten Network is currently available to everyone subscriber in the state. Of the 673,000 households left, the Big Ten will make ten cents per month for each of the hypothetical 70% that subscribe to some premium tier. (471,000*$.1=$47,000.) If UConn was in the Big Ten and the BTN were to get 90 cents for each of those peeps, that's about $424,000 per month....an increase of $377,000 per month.

So instead of $3.5M per month as imagined above, a half-assed estimate might be closer to $4.5M per year. For UConn to the Big Ten to make much sense, the subscriber fee would have to be much higher than the normal going rate for the network or they'd have to be convinced that we'd help penetration in the New York and larger New England markets.

Now, all this presumes that the subscriber fee is the only source of income for the network - I don't know if that's true. (i.e. Do they make more selling ads to a wealthier demographic in Connecticut as opposed to the corn-shuckers in Iowa...I dunno.)

 

[whaler11]

What did SNY get? I'm asking this seriously because as soon as the UConn/SNY deal was announced a few years back, every cable provider that didn't current;y have SNY, carried it. I know we didn't get it on Cox in Southington and then UConn made the deal and we got it. I believe SNY is now on every cable provider in the state. I dunno if that would be an equivalent comparison to what the BTN could do? I understand we're a small state, but we're a small state with a desire to see our Huskies and would be willing to pay a little more to do so.

It's hard to tell exactly what SNY gets in Connecticut. I saw an average of 2 and change in one article, but what they can get in NYC with the Mets is different than what they are getting with Charter in Eastern CT. The BTN doesn't try to get figures like that from bigger and stronger markets, if they get about a dollar in Michigan how would they get 3 times that here?

 

[whaler11]

I imagine that the BTN is going to have a hell of a time getting on Cablevision in Fairfield at a dollar a month.

That is UConn can sit and wait on. They need Rutgers to come close to delivering the NYC DMA giving UConn the opportunity to push it over the line.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

It's hard to tell exactly what SNY gets in Connecticut. I saw an average of 2 and change in one article, but what they can get in NYC with the Mets is different than what they are getting with Charter in Eastern CT. The BTN doesn't try to get figures like that from bigger and stronger markets, if they get about a dollar in Michigan how would they get 3 times that here?

That's crazy that the B1G Network only gets a $1/month in Michigan, with not only one, but two huge fan bases with traditionally good football and basketball programs.

 

[UConnJim]

Fishy - it's a big stretch to think that Fairfield County will pay top rates for BTN because Rutgers joined the Big 10. It's a stretch that Rutgers will deliver NYC. Adding UConn would guarantee Connecticut at full rate and help with NYC. The one thing the politicians and regulators can not let happen is a full priced BTN in Fairfield County without UConn.

 

[zls44]

Its in the contracts that if the Big Ten adds a school in the footprint, the subscriber rate escalates from $0.10/sub to $1.00/sub.

My argument has always been that what works with Johnny Hayseed cable in Iowa is never going to fly with James Dolan- but its in the contracts. This also means that Fairfield County cable subscribers are going to see higher cable bills because Rutgers got in the Big Ten.

 

[Fishy]

Fishy - it's a big stretch to think that Fairfield County will pay top rates for BTN because Rutgers joined the Big 10. It's a stretch that Rutgers will deliver NYC. Adding UConn would guarantee Connecticut at full rate and help with NYC. The one thing the politicians and regulators can not let happen is a full priced BTN in Fairfield County without UConn.

Hmm...first, I think the increase is compulsory in terms of adding a team in a DMA. Second, I don't think your idea about regulators restricting the BTN's rates is possible or even legal.

Given that some of the RSN's like YES and SNY are between $2.60 and $3.20 a head, the Big Ten Network at .90 is probably quite appealing. The content is excellent.

We keep making the mistake of thinking that this is the Big Ten trying to sell Rutgers to New York and Maryland to the mid-Atlantic - it's not. This is about the Big Ten selling the Big Ten in New York and the mid-Atlantic. They're selling Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc., etc.

 

[UConnJim]

Its in the contracts that if the Big Ten adds a school in the footprint, the subscriber rate escalates from $0.10/sub to $1.00/sub.

My argument has always been that what works with Johnny Hayseed cable in Iowa is never going to fly with James Dolan- but its in the contracts. This also means that Fairfield County cable subscribers are going to see higher cable bills because Rutgers got in the Big Ten.

Not true. BTN could decide to go of $0.10 for sub in NY to get put on all tiers to generate more add revenue for the network. Plus, there is no rule that a cable company has to add a channel at max rate. There are many, many precedents including SNY in Connecticut.

 

[UConnJim]

Hmm...first, I think the increase is compulsory in terms of adding a team in a DMA. Second, I don't think your idea about regulators restricting the BTN's rates is possible or even legal.

Given that some of the RSN's like YES and SNY are between $2.60 and $3.20 a head, the Big Ten Network at .90 is probably quite appealing. The content is excellent.

We keep making the mistake of thinking that this is the Big Ten trying to sell Rutgers to New York and Maryland to the mid-Atlantic - it's not. This is about the Big Ten selling the Big Ten in New York and the mid-Atlantic. They're selling Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc., etc.

The content on YES and SNY is MUCH, MUCH better than the BTN. Have you looked at the football games that are on the BTN? You won't see many good matchups. On YES, you could see Red Sox/Yankees for instance. Much more valuable.

As for paying full price for BTN because Rutgers was added, any politician would make many friends for pushing back on that.