ACC Network Done Deal? | Page 2 | The Boneyard

ACC Network Done Deal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Throw 'em on SNY or YES or MSG or NESN or a combination of a few/all of them. And done.

I say sign up with ESPN. Let ESPN do the production on football, men's and women's bball. Give them half the money. UConn works with NBC to produce hockey and maybe soccer and pays for the production costs (I'm assuming NBCSN has the Hockey East contract, not sure; it may be NESN).
 
Annnnnnddddd.THUD.

We think we’re in a really good position for the long-term,” Swofford told Fischel. “We’ve just got to make the right decisions and time things appropriately.”

“I don’t know that there will be public clarity,” Swofford said of this week. “I think we will move further down the trail of where we’re headed, without question. … We’re really just not going to have a whole lot more to say until we reach a point of saying something definitive. It takes some patience with that, but we’ll get to a good place, I’m confident.”


Translation: "ESPN said no and I am running out of ways to avoid saying that."

If I am ESPN I'm not bending over backwards to create an ACC Network when I could possibly get a Big 12 Network on the cheap in the event UT capitulates over the LHN.

Honestly, I can't see how an ACC Network gets done first unless its clear that the Big 12 plans are dead.
 
Just so Swofbot is a transformer and turns into an ATM...."Ill take our $3 million now, boss. Which button do I push?
I don't think FSU will, if it means a longer or more enforceable GOR.
 
I say sign up with ESPN. Let ESPN do the production on football, men's and women's bball. Give them half the money. UConn works with NBC to produce hockey and maybe soccer and pays for the production costs (I'm assuming NBCSN has the Hockey East contract, not sure; it may be NESN).

For Hockey, its NESN. They mainly show mass teams, but the UConn hockey team does get on SNY and ASN(American Sports Net) when it's a national broadcast on various outlets. But yea, NESN has the HE contract.
NBC/NBCSN is pretty much strictly ND.

How about they work with CSN (Comcast sportsnet)? They only have the Celtics and the the revs. How about NESN+??? However, it's seems NESN has a contract with the ACC and plays mostly BC games plus a few others.

I think NESN+ should be the CT channel, but also broadcast it throughout NE. UConn and the Whalers(someday). Work out some deal with SNY so you still capture FC and NYC so theirs no blackout in either area
 
Getting back to the B12 vs ACC network debate, both conferences have their fair share of schleps that do nothing for a network. Both conferences desperately need to add markets.
 
.-.
Getting back to the B12 vs ACC network debate, both conferences have their fair share of schleps that do nothing for a network. Both conferences desperately need to add markets.

This is why something like LHN made sense.
 
If I am ESPN I'm not bending over backwards to create an ACC Network when I could possibly get a Big 12 Network on the cheap in the event UT capitulates over the LHN.

Honestly, I can't see how an ACC Network gets done first unless its clear that the Big 12 plans are dead.


Does anyone really believe that Texas will give up the LHN?
 
I like that..."Moving down the trail to where we are headed...."

Easin' on down the road.

I don't know where we are going...but I know the vehicle we're in...a hand basket.


Kinda like "monitoring the situation"?
 
Does anyone really believe that Texas will give up the LHN?
I do, but only if it is in there best interest to do so. Texas is a lot like Notre Dame as a confernence partner. They look after their own interests and don't particularly care about the rubble they leave behind them.

So, if the Big 12 sweetens the deal to guarantee Texas more than $15 million, and allows them to keep the LHN in Texas, and extends the new guaranteed return, I think Texas would bite. Why wouldn't they?
 
Does anyone really believe that Texas will give up the LHN?

I don't think there's any way UT gives up the LHN. The question is, do they believe the OU threat and are they prepared for the demise of the B12? We all know UT will never lack for options -- but it's a simple cost/benefit analysis.
 
.-.
The Pac's network has been a failure so far...much griping at PAC programs

I would think part of the PAC's problem is that no one gets that channel. You take a league that already complains about east coast bias, and then put their games on a network nobody (in the east) has. They should be more focused on building their brand and getting exposure, even if it means less revenue now.
 
Just so Swofbot is a transformer and turns into an ATM...."Ill take our $3 million now, boss. Which button do I push?
Swofbot the Transformer would be a Decepticon !!
 
This is why UConn needs to tell Aresco to stuff it.

UConn needs to grab its Tier3 rights back and start a network in state.

I think you are kidding, but just in case: why would ESPN agree to that?
 
I think you are kidding, but just in case: why would ESPN agree to that?

ESPN? Who said anything about ESPN? The conference has 3 more years to go with ESPN. The last football season on the contract is 2019. Though there is supposedly a look-in coming this year.
 
.-.
This just in from the ACC Meetings: New policies now in place for the ACC Tournament in Greensboro:

 
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.
 
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"
 
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.
 
.-.
I don't see ESPN essentially throwing away 45 million dollars right now sooooooo.....me thinks "something" is going to happen soon.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).”
 
The rights' fees do not grow - if it exists, it is a one-time payment.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,346
Messages
4,566,217
Members
10,468
Latest member
ADD3LA


Top Bottom