ACC votes to add Stanford, Cal, SMU: Conference presidents approve expansion to 18 schools | Page 16 | The Boneyard

ACC votes to add Stanford, Cal, SMU: Conference presidents approve expansion to 18 schools

Slasher said:
SMU is so valuable because of the Dallas market. Right? Right? Oh... oops:
View attachment 91860

Only 18,000 people watched their game. Yikes.
Expand ...
When I read that 18,000 I thought you meant watched the game in person.

Yikes, indeed.
 
Slasher said:
SMU is so valuable because of the Dallas market. Right? Right? Oh... oops:
View attachment 91860

Only 18,000 people watched their game. Yikes.
Expand ...

I understood the Dallas argument to be about ACCN getting added to DFW cable lineups, which would mean increased ACCN revenue. Granted increased carriage is not the cash cow it once was, but every little bit helps.

Also I would say that I watch games that are free. Aint no amount of money I would pay additionally to watch FSU-Clemson. But if Duke-Wake is the closest game as part of my existing cable TV sub, I may watch. In other words, just becoming available will increase viewership, and maybe even develop a following over time.

I suspect that part of that calculation was that SMU was once the king of NIL. Only problem was that it was 40 years ago and it was illegal then.

Lastly, is 18k viewers the correct interpretation? I didnt realize Nielsen ratings had that kind of precision, but I'm more used to looking at national numbers.
 
SMU is valuable because they brought in carriage fees for the whole state of Texas for the ACCN (in-state fee versus non footprint fee)...plus they play for free and give you their money.
 
There are 70 million people in CA and TX. That's what matters here. Let's say there's 15 million cable subscriptions between the two. If the ACC's in-market subscription fees increase $1.25 per month, you're looking at $225 million in new revenue per year. Throw in a potential Apple TV streaming deal, you start seeing why Stanford, Cal, and SMU are in the mix.
Expand ...
 
It’s still shocking that Cal would get chosen over us. You don’t need two teams from the same market. Even SMU getting the call over us is shocking given how bad they are at everything.
 
NE Football said:
It’s still shocking that Cal would get chosen over us. You don’t need two teams from the same market. Even SMU getting the call over us is shocking given how bad they are at everything.
Expand ...

The San Fran metro and DFW metro areas alone have more population than the state of Connecticut. Academic reputations of both Cali schools are in a different level than UConn and SMU usually ranks near UConn.

I'm as disappointed and somewhat shocked as much as anyone over UConn still being on the outside. Stanford, and SMU being in a conference named the Atlantic Coast Conference makes no sense to me either.

But suggesting others can't or shouldn't find value in two schools in the San Fran metro or the DFW metro's #4 school doesn't make sense either.
 
Last edited:
NE Football said:
It’s still shocking that Cal would get chosen over us. You don’t need two teams from the same market. Even SMU getting the call over us is shocking given how bad they are at everything.
Expand ...
You can mock Cal and SMU all you want, but they are in and we are out. Between 1989 and 2018, SMU is 5-0 against UConn in football, so they are not bad at everything as you state. I imagine that both the ACC and The Big 12 anti UConn contingent are gloating over our football season so far, with an "I told you so!"
 
Chin Diesel said:
The San Fran metro and DFW metro areas alone have more population than the state of Connecticut. Academic reputations of both Cali schools are in a different level than UConn and SMU usually ranks near UConn.

I'm as disappointed and somewhat shocked as much as anyone over UConn still being on the outside. Stanford, and SMU being in a conference named the Atlantic Coast Conference makes no sense to me either.

But suggesting others can't or shouldn't find value in two schools in the San Fran metro or the DFW metro's #4 school doesn't make sense either.
Expand ...
True, but being in a metro area and having fans who are actually interested in you can be two different things. For both of the schools, they are.
 
I do think that football success is important...but it really comes down to money...

....Play for free like SMU for a decade? Who woulda thunk it a few years back?

And, like the Big 12 and Big Ten, the ACC goes to a multi time zone conference....and

..... giving ESPN the ability to fill late-night broadcast windows with Cal and Stanford home games could help replace some slots vacated by the network’s expiring Pac-12 deal.
 
billybud said:
SMU is valuable because they brought in carriage fees for the whole state of Texas for the ACCN (in-state fee versus non footprint fee)...plus they play for free and give you their money.
Expand ...

At 6 million cable households in Texas, $1/month in-state carriage fee, that's $72 million per year so that 18,000 SMU fans can watch a dozen football games.

No wonder cable companies are losing subscribers.
 
Yes...

But 8n 2002, SMU averaged more viewers per game than VT, Marshall, Houston, Memphis, Duke...
 
pj said:
At 6 million cable households in Texas, $1/month in-state carriage fee, that's $72 million per year so that 18,000 SMU fans can watch a dozen football games.

No wonder cable companies are losing subscribers.
Expand ...
Why would Houston or San Antonio cable carry the ACCN ?

SMU may have rich alums, but it’s a small FBS private school (7000 undergrads).
Total enrolled of 12k is 119th out of 133.
 
Carriage fees for conference networks have been statewide in the past. Whether cable views it as a bridge too far with SMU/Stanford/Cal remains to be seen.

Also small private schools are kinda the ACC‘s jam. Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Duke.
 
pj said:
At 6 million cable households in Texas, $1/month in-state carriage fee, that's $72 million per year so that 18,000 SMU fans can watch a dozen football games.

No wonder cable companies are losing subscribers.
Expand ...
This is assuming the market is elastic enough to absorb the entire fee without losing subscribers. We aren't far from a major inflection point.
 
Vowelguy said:
Why would Houston or San Antonio cable carry the ACCN ?

SMU may have rich alums, but it’s a small FBS private school (7000 undergrads).
Total enrolled of 12k is 119th out of 133.
Expand ...

If folks in Houston or San Antonio have have Comcasr, Direct TV, FIOS, HULU, YouTube TV, Charter Spectrum, Playstation, Dish Network, AT&T, Sling, etc...they get the ACCN.
 
Why do I get the SECN in North Carolina...and the BTN ?

Because that is how carriage works.

I have DTV..and thus get those channels per their carriage agreements...
 
billybud said:
Why do I get the SECN in North Carolina...and the BTN ?

Because that is how carriage works.
Expand ...
Good for you. Do you watch UConn football? That seems to be the one subject you never talk about.
 
I have posted about UConn football...Yesterday at 8:05 am for example.

I do not post about individual players or coaches....I post about schedules, opponents...but steer clear of team criticism that seems to be endemic..

I'll miss Rice because I have not paid for an ESPN+ package add on to DTV.
 
Last edited:
billybud said:
Why do I get the SECN in North Carolina...and the BTN ?

Because that is how carriage works.

I have DTV..and thus get those channels per their carriage agreements...
Expand ...
Yes but cable companies have localized lineups. I have never had the PAC network. I didn’t even have ACCN when it first launched and I live in northern Virginia!

Comcast Seattle is not going to carry ACCN (or only via an extra sports package). They’re not going to pay $1/subscriber (or whatever it is) for a channel no one watches.

So, again, why are Houston and San Antonio’s going to pay (or raise prices) for a channel that SMU fans want?
 
billybud said:
If folks in Houston or San Antonio have have Comcasr, Direct TV, FIOS, HULU, YouTube TV, Charter Spectrum, Playstation, Dish Network, AT&T, Sling, etc...they get the ACCN.
Expand ...
I've got Spectrum and you only get ACC in their new packages if you buy the Sportview upgrade. Even if a company has it in a basic package, will it still be after they are notified that the price went up 10x? As for streamers, do they pay a different amount depending on the billing address for the account? They are starting to see cable company type price increases and will also be incented to cut channels that cost too much compared to customer interest
 
Vowelguy said:
Yes but cable companies have localized lineups. I have never had the PAC network. I didn’t even have ACCN when it first launched and I live in northern Virginia!

Comcast Seattle is not going to carry ACCN (or only via an extra sports package). They’re not going to pay $1/subscriber (or whatever it is) for a channel no one watches.

So, again, why are Houston and San Antonio’s going to pay (or raise prices) for a channel that SMU fans want?
Expand ...

Carriage contracts are not local...Comcast, nationwide, has the signed carriage agreement with ESPN.

Now, since the ACC is not in Washington State...they do not automatically carry the ACCN. They do have access through the Digital Preferred Comcast package.

But all in-footprint state Comcast subscribers will automatically have and pay in-footprint fees for, the ACCN.

Houston, Atlanta, Amarillo, San Antonio, Rising Star, Sacramento, Truckee, etc...they will have the channel.

And that was why the ACC picked up SMU...Texas is now in-footprint...And Cal-Stan...California now in footprint.
 
Last edited:

Online statistics

Members online
263
Guests online
2,308
Total visitors
2,571
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,139
Messages
4,384,328
Members
10,185
Latest member
aacgoast


.
..
Top Bottom