ACC Network Dead? Is that the End of the ACC?

[SVPanther]

The ACC Network does not go live until 2019. With the continuing deterioration of ESPN's subscriber base, it would not be unreasonable for ESPN to junk the idea and not move forward.
In that event, the whole "Grant of Rights" become problematic. After all, the intent was more to leverage the conference negotiating as a block on the theory that the revenue yield would be greater than if schools negotiated separately.
So, if ESPN puts the kybosh to the ACC Network, then the conference is left negotiating a much smaller package.
So what's a reasonable AD to do? Look to see what better deal might be had with another conference or, some ACC schools banding together to do their own network thing which obviously works against the interest of schools with less of a following.
Just throwing it out there, but the cost cutting at ESPN shows no end and the ACC Network would be a prime target to cut.

 

[Panthergrowl13]

NO!!!! on both questions

HAIL TO PITT!!!

 

[Swervin27]

I think there is some sort of financial punishment if they do squash this idea. of course you get enough lawyers involved, any iron clad contract can and will become useless.. let's hope the Disney corp. doesn't have a legal team..

All I hear about is this push for streaming content and everyone on the planet "cutting the chord" so yeah, expecting a new network channel, one on my tv, seems like it may not come thru..

 

[NTOP]

I think there is some sort of financial punishment if they do squash this idea. of course you get enough lawyers involved, any iron clad contract can and will become useless.. let's hope the Disney corp. doesn't have a legal team..

They do, but it"s a Mickey Mouse outfit.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Reminds Me Of The Dude Stories:


ThIs One Is Better, Fox TV Will Step Into The ACC!

 

[BuffetParrothead]

Sports media is moving to more events like a conference networks because it a beginning to an end of "pay for play" sports events!

People will be moving to paying for specific sports programing rather than getting sports by drinking from a firehose/ESPN.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

Nope. ACC already has a leg up on the digital side. Louisville is building an 8mil studio for it.

 

[yourhired]

You really don't think the ACC wouldn't have signed the contracts by now. The demise of ESPN have been greatly exaggerated

 

[KennyTheKangaroo]

If the SEC network dies, does the SEC disappear? Big 10?

 

[PittMan 72]

If the SEC network dies, does the SEC disappear? Big 10?

In the OP's "dream world" apparently the gloom and doom will only affect the ACC.

 

[CrazyPaco]

The ACC Network does not go live until 2019. With the continuing deterioration of ESPN's subscriber base, it would not be unreasonable for ESPN to junk the idea and not move forward.
In that event, the whole "Grant of Rights" become problematic. After all, the intent was more to leverage the conference negotiating as a block on the theory that the revenue yield would be greater than if schools negotiated separately.
So, if ESPN puts the kybosh to the ACC Network, then the conference is left negotiating a much smaller package.
So what's a reasonable AD to do? Look to see what better deal might be had with another conference or, some ACC schools banding together to do their own network thing which obviously works against the interest of schools with less of a following.
Just throwing it out there, but the cost cutting at ESPN shows no end and the ACC Network would be a prime target to cut.

Have you been reading the Dude's blog? ESPN is not in any danger of going out of business. It's just adjusting to a changing market and it is on the forefront of changing consumption. It is still making billions, with a B. It is still makes $7 a head from carriers, and from streaming bundling services which is log folds more than any other channel.

Like the SEC Network, the ACC Network production is going to be partially off-loaded to the individual schools. There isn't a ton of up front costs associated with this for ESPN. They've already signed the rights contract with the ACC. It's starting up at the right time to be part of ESPN's next round of negotiations with carriers and will be bundled with the SECN. It's going to make ESPN more money, because they're going to have a new per head revenue stream, just like the SEC Network. Do people really think ESPN doesn't know what it is doing in this area? There is absolutely no better partner for the ACC to be hitched to.

 

[SVPanther]

Timely.
http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/index.ssf/2017/05/acc_network_john_wildhack_syracuse_university.html

 

[Jpripper88]

Have you been reading the Dude's blog? ESPN is not in any danger of going out of business. It's just adjusting to a changing market and it is on the forefront of changing consumption. It is still making billions, with a B. It is still makes $7 a head from carriers, and from streaming bundling services which is log folds more than any other channel.

Like the SEC Network, the ACC Network production is going to be partially off-loaded to the individual schools. There isn't a ton of up front costs associated with this for ESPN. They've already signed the rights contract with the ACC. It's starting up at the right time to be part of ESPN's next round of negotiations with carriers and will be bundled with the SECN. It's going to make ESPN more money, because they're going to have a new per head revenue stream, just like the SEC Network. Do people really think ESPN doesn't know what it is doing in this area? There is absolutely no better partner for the ACC to be hitched to.

I don't think he made any mention of an expectation for ESPN to go out of business, but there is no doubt they are pivoting from serious sports coverage and journalism (what little was left) to more social/political commentary and social media focus for their non-live sports programming. Because of their bloated rights deals, the ACCN is certainly in jeopardy of being supported in a way that will allow it on air success or even over the internet success.

Many people are questioning what this all means for the ACC and ESPN moving forward. It will not mean the ACC disbanding or getting broken up, however. That worry clearly lies with the B12. However, there is a bubble in all sports, which will burst at some point. The revenues are just not going to continue to grow into perpetuity.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Again, the Games & Sports sells themselves and cost reductions will be at ESPN on Salaries, Shows, and the Nonsense they have been developing over just showing the Game. They are making money just not meeting projections and to what Disney Expects Levels of Profits and hurting Disney's projections too, and why they could be sold.

The Downsizing is way overdue and Salaries way over the Top for Talent not needed at those numbers. Media in general is very competitive now and reducing costs as ratings and subscribers balk is the answer. On Sunday, KDKA put on a Steeler Fraft Day Hour with this (Meillis Matthews) not sure of the name but she was so lame. All she did was copy from Intenet Articles and NFL Combine Reports and it was a pitiful show and turned it off. This is the kind of lame show that won't gather ratings and 4 or 5 Old Coaches could have been brought on for less money and make comments and know what they are talking about. I am not putting her down just the people at KDKA the put her on and think they are making progress somehow of informing us what we can read on the Internet by person with no background whatsoever???

Media is going the way of the Print Newspapers, no one paying them like before, costs are reduced, and soon will be less and less, as competition reduces their salaries and shows too.

Nothing brings in ratings but the Game & Players & Coaches, not one Fan in The Stands, or Broadcaster, or Pre-Game Celebrities Show, Bimbos-Mimbos Sidleine Reports that takes away Plays of the Game will up Ratings. They are no longer needed as often and they are a dime a dozen in reality.

It about the game, and quick taking away watching the plays, and sooner or later one smart Sports executive will bring it back and put it right, and the overpaid puffs and buffs will be gone.

ESPN can be fixed at far lower fixed costs! The Game itself sells itself! Dump the TV Hosts, Bums, and Babes that want to make the Game about them, and then miss the Plays not know when to Shut Up when a Running Back is making a TD and we are watching an Interview about Keith Jackson brought out of a Nursing Home, that not one millennial even knows???

 

[CrazyPaco]

I don't think he made any mention of an expectation for ESPN to go out of business, but there is no doubt they are pivoting from serious sports coverage and journalism (what little was left) to more social/political commentary and social media focus for their non-live sports programming. Because of their bloated rights deals, the ACCN is certainly in jeopardy of being supported in a way that will allow it on air success or even over the internet success.

Many people are questioning what this all means for the ACC and ESPN moving forward. It will not mean the ACC disbanding or getting broken up, however. That worry clearly lies with the B12. However, there is a bubble in all sports, which will burst at some point. The revenues are just not going to continue to grow into perpetuity.

All conferences are in the exact same situation in regards to their networks. The ACCN's future isn't in any more jeopardy than any other. Every single conference school is spending millions on gearing up for this network. The lawsuits will be out of control if ESPN doesn't put forth an honest effort to support it, which actually makes little sense since they already have the rights to the ACC which include clauses from which the conference is already receiving compensation for not having a linear network currently in place. It's not like ESPN has to go out an acquire any more rights. It will likely be centrally produced out of their existing facility in Charlotte with the schools handling the production of all the actual live events. No ESPN production trucks necessary. Primarily, they just have to secure carriage for it in their negotiations for their existing channels. For ESPN, this is about better monetizing the rights they already own. This isn't going to lose money for them, and if they thought there was any chance it would, they never would have agreed to the last contract with the ACC last year that runs through 2036 and stipulates that this network would be created.

If ESPN has trouble foisting the ACCN on carriers and streaming services, then it could be in trouble, but then so will the SECN and LHN, the later of which is much more difficult sell than the ACCN would be.

 

[topdecktiger]

I don't think he made any mention of an expectation for ESPN to go out of business, but there is no doubt they are pivoting from serious sports coverage and journalism (what little was left) to more social/political commentary and social media focus for their non-live sports programming. Because of their bloated rights deals, the ACCN is certainly in jeopardy of being supported in a way that will allow it on air success or even over the internet success.

Many people are questioning what this all means for the ACC and ESPN moving forward. It will not mean the ACC disbanding or getting broken up, however. That worry clearly lies with the B12. However, there is a bubble in all sports, which will burst at some point. The revenues are just not going to continue to grow into perpetuity.

The problem with your analysis is, the ACC has already signed a contract with ESPN to create the network. ESPN can't get out of it. It would make zero financial sense for ESPN to default on the ACC network. You can either pay the ACC more money, and not televise the network, or you could pay the ACC more money and at least make some sort of return from the network. So, let me see, pay more money for nothing, or get some sort of return. Gee, let me think.....

 

[counselor10]

Again, the Games & Sports sells themselves and cost reductions will be at ESPN on Salaries, Shows, and the Nonsense they have been developing over just showing the Game. They are making money just not meeting projections and to what Disney Expects Levels of Profits and hurting Disney's projections too, and why they could be sold.

The Downsizing is way overdue and Salaries way over the Top for Talent not needed at those numbers. Media in general is very competitive now and reducing costs as ratings and subscribers balk is the answer. On Sunday, KDKA put on a Steeler Fraft Day Hour with this (Meillis Matthews) not sure of the name but she was so lame. All she did was copy from Intenet Articles and NFL Combine Reports and it was a pitiful show and turned it off. This is the kind of lame show that won't gather ratings and 4 or 5 Old Coaches could have been brought on for less money and make comments and know what they are talking about. I am not putting her down just the people at KDKA the put her on and think they are making progress somehow of informing us what we can read on the Internet by person with no background whatsoever???

Media is going the way of the Print Newspapers, no one paying them like before, costs are reduced, and soon will be less and less, as competition reduces their salaries and shows too.

Nothing brings in ratings but the Game & Players & Coaches, not one Fan in The Stands, or Broadcaster, or Pre-Game Celebrities Show, Bimbos-Mimbos Sidleine Reports that takes away Plays of the Game will up Ratings. They are no longer needed as often and they are a dime a dozen in reality.

It about the game, and quick taking away watching the plays, and sooner or later one smart Sports executive will bring it back and put it right, and the overpaid puffs and buffs will be gone.

ESPN can be fixed at far lower fixed costs! The Game itself sells itself! Dump the TV Hosts, Bums, and Babes that want to make the Game about them, and then miss the Plays not know when to Shut Up when a Running Back is making a TD and we are watching an Interview about Keith Jackson brought out of a Nursing Home, that not one millennial even knows???

Nice post. Would agree. Here is what you are going to start seeing...less to zero courtside/sideline reporters, you are going to start seeing play by play not at stadium, or arenas, however they are going to be in studio calling the game. The productions costs are out of control as well. Trucks and equipment.....ESPN is still making their money, just not at the alarming rate they were 5 years ago.

 

[PeetWeet1]

Timely.
http://www.syracuse.com/axeman/index.ssf/2017/05/acc_network_john_wildhack_syracuse_university.html

Did you read the article? ACC generates more viewers for ESPN than anyone else.

 

[SVPanther]

The problem with your analysis is, the ACC has already signed a contract with ESPN to create the network. ESPN can't get out of it. It would make zero financial sense for ESPN to default on the ACC network. You can either pay the ACC more money, and not televise the network, or you could pay the ACC more money and at least make some sort of return from the network. So, let me see, pay more money for nothing, or get some sort of return. Gee, let me think.....

Well, that's not quite how it works.
There is a concept called "efficient breach of contract" which holds that in cases where you can avoid prospective losses, or make more profit on another opportunity compared to the one you are presently engaged in, the economically efficient thing to do is breach the contract and pay damages on the theory you'll come out better in the long run. So to say "ESPN can't get out of its contract" is patently wrong. Either party has the power to breach and it often makes sense to do so.
So what damages would ESPN have to pay? Different formulations, by generally it would be the difference between the ESPN/ACC contract and what another broadcaster would pay the ACC. That's the battle of expert witnesses.
Another intreaguing idea would be just to put ESPN in Chapter 11 thereby opening up renegotiation of all their broadcast contracts (the NBA one is an albatross).
Who know what happens but as others have posted, events are moving rapidly. I presume that the conferences have contingency plans in place. Would be prudent under the circumstances, no?

 

[topdecktiger]

Well, that's not quite how it works.
There is a concept called "efficient breach of contract" which holds that in cases where you can avoid prospective losses, or make more profit on another opportunity compared to the one you are presently engaged in, the economically efficient thing to do is breach the contract and pay damages on the theory you'll come out better in the long run. So to say "ESPN can't get out of its contract" is patently wrong. Either party has the power to breach and it often makes sense to do so.
So what damages would ESPN have to pay? Different formulations, by generally it would be the difference between the ESPN/ACC contract and what another broadcaster would pay the ACC. That's the battle of expert witnesses.
Another intreaguing idea would be just to put ESPN in Chapter 11 thereby opening up renegotiation of all their broadcast contracts (the NBA one is an albatross).
Who know what happens but as others have posted, events are moving rapidly. I presume that the conferences have contingency plans in place. Would be prudent under the circumstances, no?

Yes, that is how it works. By that logic, ESPN could get out of the LHN contract. They are losing money on LHN. That would be a perfect situation to test out your theory. However, it hasn't happened has it? No. That's because ESPN would have to pay an assload of money to Texas and IMG.

By the same token, ESPN would have to pay a ton to the ACC. They have a 20 year contract. It will cost ESPN way too much money.

You are also leaving out some real world examples that contradict your claim. Years ago, ESPN wanted to move MLB games to ESPN2, to make room for NFL games. MLB objected because ESPN had agreed to show those games on the main ESPN channel. Guess what? MLB won.The games stayed on ESPN.

Also, in the previous contract, ESPN was obligated to pay the ACC a penalty if a network wasn't launched by 2017. Guess what? ESPN is paying the penalty. These are two perfect examples where ESPN could have used your theory. We see how that worked out. So no, in the real world, ESPN isn't getting out of the ACC network. I don't care how bad you want it to happen. Reality doesn't support your hypothesis.

 

[SVPanther]

Yes, that is how it works. By that logic, ESPN could get out of the LHN contract. They are losing money on LHN. That would be a perfect situation to test out your theory. However, it hasn't happened has it? No. That's because ESPN would have to pay an assload of money to Texas and IMG.

By the same token, ESPN would have to pay a ton to the ACC. They have a 20 year contract. It will cost ESPN way too much money.

You are also leaving out some real world examples that contradict your claim. Years ago, ESPN wanted to move MLB games to ESPN2, to make room for NFL games. MLB objected because ESPN had agreed to show those games on the main ESPN channel. Guess what? MLB won.The games stayed on ESPN.

Also, in the previous contract, ESPN was obligated to pay the ACC a penalty if a network wasn't launched by 2017. Guess what? ESPN is paying the penalty. These are two perfect examples where ESPN could have used your theory. We see how that worked out. So no, in the real world, ESPN isn't getting out of the ACC network. I don't care how bad you want it to happen. Reality doesn't support your hypothesis.

I deal in the "real world" of these issues every day. Beyond that, these are mere contract damages, fully dischargable in a bk. Airlines are a master of this.
BTW, "penalties" in contracts are void. Can't have them.
Point of all this is that broadcasting rights aren't as lucrative as the used to be. The future is always dynamic. But if ESPN is the proverbial canary in the coal mine, then it all unravels and universities get stuck with facilities, coaches salaries and associated commitments they can never meet. The snowball into to avelanche if you will.

 

[PeetWeet1]

Well, that's not quite how it works.
There is a concept called "efficient breach of contract" which holds that in cases where you can avoid prospective losses, or make more profit on another opportunity compared to the one you are presently engaged in, the economically efficient thing to do is breach the contract and pay damages on the theory you'll come out better in the long run. So to say "ESPN can't get out of its contract" is patently wrong. Either party has the power to breach and it often makes sense to do so.
So what damages would ESPN have to pay? Different formulations, by generally it would be the difference between the ESPN/ACC contract and what another broadcaster would pay the ACC. That's the battle of expert witnesses.
Another intreaguing idea would be just to put ESPN in Chapter 11 thereby opening up renegotiation of all their broadcast contracts (the NBA one is an albatross).
Who know what happens but as others have posted, events are moving rapidly. I presume that the conferences have contingency plans in place. Would be prudent under the circumstances, no?

What do you do for a living? I ask because your posts are well written, but have no logical or factual basis. ESPN was making money before the layoffs. Chapter 11 isn't on the table.

 

[topdecktiger]

I deal in the "real world" of these issues every day. Beyond that, these are mere contract damages, fully dischargable in a bk. Airlines are a master of this.
BTW, "penalties" in contracts are void. Can't have them.
Point of all this is that broadcasting rights aren't as lucrative as the used to be. The future is always dynamic. But if ESPN is the proverbial canary in the coal mine, then it all unravels and universities get stuck with facilities, coaches salaries and associated commitments they can never meet. The snowball into to avelanche if you will.

No, you are nowhere close to the real world. If you think ESPN is going to be able to get out of the contract for the ACC network, you are out of you mind. You completely ignored the three points I mentioned.

1) LHN loses money and would be the perfect time to enact the procedure you described. Hasn't happened.
2) ESPN actually tried something similar with MLB years ago. Didn't work.
3) ESPN currently has to pay the ACC for not starting the network in 2017. Yet again another perfect time for ESPN to test your theory. Didn't happen.

Just face reality. ESPN isn't getting out of the deal. The ACC will get a network in 2019. Trying to convince yourself otherwise is just a waste of time.

 

[PeetWeet1]

I deal in the "real world" of these issues every day. Beyond that, these are mere contract damages, fully dischargable in a bk. Airlines are a master of this.
BTW, "penalties" in contracts are void. Can't have them.
Point of all this is that broadcasting rights aren't as lucrative as the used to be. The future is always dynamic. But if ESPN is the proverbial canary in the coal mine, then it all unravels and universities get stuck with facilities, coaches salaries and associated commitments they can never meet. The snowball into to avelanche if you will.

Try shutting down an assembly line and let me know how that goes. I suspect you will quickly discover that penalties are, in fact, enforceable.

 

[SVPanther]

Try shutting down an assembly line and let me know how that goes. I suspect you will quickly discover that penalties are, in fact, enforceable.

Uh...no....
"Penalties in English law are contractual terms which are not enforceable in the courts because of their penal character. Since at least 1720 it has been accepted as a matter of English contract law that if a provision in a contract constitutes a penalty, then that provision is unenforceable by the parties."
Basic contract law.
BTW. Who works on assembly lines anymore?

 

[SVPanther]

Not just me saying it:

"During an appearance on The "Sports Illustrated Media Podcast" with Richard Deitsch, Miller said doesn't think ESPN can commit to the ACC Network as planned in 2019.
"I wouldn't count on it," Miller said. "I think that is part of the recalculation they are doing looking forward, in particular since that will be on the eve of these big rights deals we have been talking about. And they are going to need to save money."

 

[SVPanther]

Thanks bro.
I'm a lawyer.

What do you do for a living? I ask because your posts are well written, but have no logical or factual basis. ESPN was making money before the layoffs. Chapter 11 isn't on the table.

 

[PeetWeet1]

Uh...no....
"Penalties in English law are contractual terms which are not enforceable in the courts because of their penal character. Since at least 1720 it has been accepted as a matter of English contract law that if a provision in a contract constitutes a penalty, then that provision is unenforceable by the parties."
Basic contract law.
BTW. Who works on assembly lines anymore?

The people they built your car. The people that built the machines that built your home....

And, uh.. yes... The penalties described in this thread refer to agreements to compensate for harm caused. These agreements tend to be enforceable. You know, basic contract law.

 

[topdecktiger]

Not just me saying it:

"During an appearance on The "Sports Illustrated Media Podcast" with Richard Deitsch, Miller said doesn't think ESPN can commit to the ACC Network as planned in 2019.
"I wouldn't count on it," Miller said. "I think that is part of the recalculation they are doing looking forward, in particular since that will be on the eve of these big rights deals we have been talking about. And they are going to need to save money."

Right. And you're ignoring people saying the opposite.

That aside, the guy's whole point is contradicted. If ESPN needs to save money, defaulting on the ACC network is ass backwards. They are going to have to pay a big chunk of change to the ACC. On the other hand, they can actually make money with the ACC network. Let's the ACC network only makes a quarter of what the SECN makes. Well in that case, ESPN would make about $60-70 million. So, let's see. You can make $60-70 million, or lose at least $50 million. Yeah, you're right. It's a great idea to default on the ACC network.

See how stupid your idea is when put into practice?

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Nice post. Would agree. Here is what you are going to start seeing...less to zero courtside/sideline reporters, you are going to start seeing play by play not at stadium, or arenas, however they are going to be in studio calling the game. The productions costs are out of control as well. Trucks and equipment.....ESPN is still making their money, just not at the alarming rate they were 5 years ago.

Agree, you are spot and wise as well on knowing some coming trends. What I learned in Silicon Valley and at the Stanford Hoover Institute in December.....Big Stadium like Big Campuses are Big Dinosaurs with Dying Baby Boomers pretty much dying away everyday much like the subscribers of ESPN.

This is why one has to laugh but I do not mock some other Posters on WVU, PSU, and USC Blogs claiming Fans win games in the Stands. They just have small brains not seeing the future and being boastful but have no idea that era is ending and your post describes and defines a foretaste of the future athletics and eduucation.

Two more points that shows Athletic Departments are preparing for it.
1. Stadium Size No Longer Matters & Costly Burdens:
In the late 1980s there was talk among Penn State Alumni (The Smart Ones Not Cult Dolts) of building the World's Largest Stadium of 125,000. The demand was there but then North Korea open a 150,000 Size Stadium in 1989. I mean North Korea??? Few know it, but North Koreans are 3 to 6 inches smaller than South Koreans and weigh almost 25 to 40 lbs less. Due to how they can't even eat and nourish themselves but are Boastful and Proud of their Largest Stadium in the World that most never see or attend as they worry about just feeding themselves? The remainder of 8 of 10 Biggest Stadiums are in USA right now.

As you are pointing out as Internet & Communications Technology grew it was realized Bigger Stadiums are really not used often and costly to maintain but real problems is the fixed costs before, on, and after game day. If attendance does not show say by 5,000 or 10,000 even if tickets sold, big time losses, because security, concessions, programs, and much manpower must still be there regardless. Thus, to be more concise Stadiums are getting smaller and must be designed to be used every day on Academics, Tourism, Local Community Events and why Penn State is enclosing and reducing capacity on renovations. Just the opposite as planned in 1980-90s.

Stanford went from 89,000 to 50,000 with far better sounds for future TV Production as you pointed out. They still want CFB Atmosphere but know those numbers can be at 35,000 to 50,000, no longer need 70,000 and up. What is more important is the Stanford Luxury Suites bought by Sponsors, Boosters, and Alumni and they are their guest are treated as Royalty. This actually makes far more in Profits than anyone game sold out. Stanford is really a small school of only 7,000 undergrads students and have more employees but it has one of largest campus size and endowments. They put the money into Sound, Video, & Luxury Suites not the Stadium Seats that all are one just one size!

Therefore, smaller and every day use is the Future of New & Renovated Stadiums with more VIPs and less Attendance that will actually be more practical and profitable.

2. Broadcasting Cost Far More Smaller & Far More Profitable:
The Second Big Change for College Football is what you described and that is being worked on as we blog, with much competition, and new models, that technology can change almost every 2 to 3 years, not 10 anymore? I won't go into those details because Posters already hate my long posts and we all want to discuss more Football. Therefore, right there proves it, even rival's Bloggers want to know and discuss about Coaches, Recruits, Players, Training, Depth Charts, Schedules, Games, and do it everyday, Just like we Agreed it is about the "GAME" and those playing and coaching them. ESPN is trying to figure it out, but in reality, they will be bought up, changed, and someone smarter will do it, like you said and at far less costs but way more money to keep at the end of each day, and every day, not just on Game Day!

Good Post by you and far more concise and only a few know what you are saying but our Lair Posters know far more than most, and just like some Lame Fans and Cult Dolts that are drunk or get drunk in the stands, one does not want to sit by them, let alone listen to them when the only thing they have in common is believing like North Koreans, Bigger Is Better, & they think they Win somehow that way, when it is actually those that play the Game, not them in anyway! Smart Beats Dumb!

This is why the Lair Attracts Smarter Posters from other Programs that come here to argue, discuss, and exchange with all to Share what we read and learn together!

Thank You for proving it!

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Right. And you're ignoring people saying the opposite.

That aside, the guy's whole point is contradicted. If ESPN needs to save money, defaulting on the ACC network is ass backwards. They are going to have to pay a big chunk of change to the ACC. On the other hand, they can actually make money with the ACC network. Let's the ACC network only makes a quarter of what the SECN makes. Well in that case, ESPN would make about $60-70 million. So, let's see. You can make $60-70 million, or lose at least $50 million. Yeah, you're right. It's a great idea to default on the ACC network.

See how stupid your idea is when put into practice?

 

[SVPanther]

Right. And you're ignoring people saying the opposite.

That aside, the guy's whole point is contradicted. If ESPN needs to save money, defaulting on the ACC network is ass backwards. They are going to have to pay a big chunk of change to the ACC. On the other hand, they can actually make money with the ACC network. Let's the ACC network only makes a quarter of what the SECN makes. Well in that case, ESPN would make about $60-70 million. So, let's see. You can make $60-70 million, or lose at least $50 million. Yeah, you're right. It's a great idea to default on the ACC network.

See how stupid your idea is when put into practice?

Ok. Let's agree that I'm stupid and the guy who authored the definitive work on ESPN is stupid.

Disney's net last year was $9.4B. $50MM or $100MM is chump change. A decimal point, if you will.

 

[PeetWeet1]

Thanks bro.
I'm a lawyer.

That explains your desire to win nearly impossible arguments. If you want to take down the D1 sports system, go back to employment law. That has a chance of working. Getting the American public to stop generating huge amounts of TV revenue for the big college conferences, not so much.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Right. And you're ignoring people saying the opposite.

That aside, the guy's whole point is contradicted. If ESPN needs to save money, defaulting on the ACC network is ass backwards. They are going to have to pay a big chunk of change to the ACC. On the other hand, they can actually make money with the ACC network. Let's the ACC network only makes a quarter of what the SECN makes. Well in that case, ESPN would make about $60-70 million. So, let's see. You can make $60-70 million, or lose at least $50 million. Yeah, you're right. It's a great idea to default on the ACC network.

See how stupid your idea is when put into practice?

We'll find out in 2 years. It's not really that far away.

In the meantime, the people that ACTUALLY know what is going and regularly talking to the actual players on are investing millions in facilities and equipment.

I'll take the Syracuse AD who spent the 36 previous years at ESPN and receives regular updates from both his contacts and the conference, vs a media entertainment journalist with no apparent other experience in the sports industry other than he co-wrote a book 7 years ago and "still follows" ESPN from a distance.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

The people they built your car. The people that built the machines that built your home....

And, uh.. yes... The penalties described in this thread refer to agreements to compensate for harm caused. These agreements tend to be enforceable. You know, basic contract law.

Disagree with respect to you because you do make good posts, most Contracts are meant to be broken and if ambiguous goes against the Party that wrote them, can be broken and revised by bankruptcy, and the vast number are settled by contending parties rather decided in courts, and when decided in courts often end putting Parties back where they were before the contract as remedy.

There are some exceptions such as Liquidated Damages Clauses, Detrimental Reliance, and Intentional Fraud but those even hard to seek a proper outcome and covered often by Arbitration, Mediation and Agreed Restitution Constraint! This is often due to the Cost and Time to Litigate and can exceed reasonable resolution so Parties settle or give up?

 

[SVPanther]

Agree, you are spot and wise as well on knowing some coming trends. What I learned in Silicon Valley and at the Stanford Hoover Institute in December.....Big Stadium like Big Campuses are Big Dinosaurs with Dying Baby Boomers pretty much dying away everyday much like the subscribers of ESPN.

This is why one has to laugh but I do not mock some other Posters on WVU, PSU, and USC Blogs claiming Fans win games in the Stands. They just have small brains not seeing the future and being boastful but have no idea that era is ending and your post describes and defines a foretaste of the future athletics and eduucation.

Two more points that shows Athletic Departments are preparing for it.
1. Stadium Size No Longer Matters & Costly Burdens:
In the late 1980s there was talk among Penn State Alumni (The Smart Ones Not Cult Dolts) of building the World's Largest Stadium of 125,000. The demand was there but then North Korea open a 150,000 Size Stadium in 1989. I mean North Korea??? Few know it, but North Koreans are 3 to 6 inches smaller than South Koreans and weigh almost 25 to 40 lbs less. Due to how they can't even eat and nourish themselves but are Boastful and Proud of their Largest Stadium in the World that most never see or attend as they worry about just feeding themselves? The remainder of 8 of 10 Biggest Stadiums are in USA right now.

As you are pointing out as Internet & Communications Technology grew it was realized Bigger Stadiums are really not used often and costly to maintain but real problems is the fixed costs before, on, and after game day. If attendance does not show say by 5,000 or 10,000 even if tickets sold, big time losses, because security, concessions, programs, and much manpower must still be there regardless. Thus, to be more concise Stadiums are getting smaller and must be designed to be used every day on Academics, Tourism, Local Community Events and why Penn State is enclosing and reducing capacity on renovations. Just the opposite as planned in 1980-90s.

Stanford went from 89,000 to 50,000 with far better sounds for future TV Production as you pointed out. They still want CFB Atmosphere but know those numbers can be at 35,000 to 50,000, no longer need 70,000 and up. What is more important is the Stanford Luxury Suites bought by Sponsors, Boosters, and Alumni and they are their guest are treated as Royalty. This actually makes far more in Profits than anyone game sold out. Stanford is really a small school of only 7,000 undergrads students and have more employees but it has one of largest campus size and endowments. They put the money into Sound, Video, & Luxury Suites not the Stadium Seats that all are one just one size!

Therefore, smaller and every day use is the Future of New & Renovated Stadiums with more VIPs and less Attendance that will actually be more practical and profitable.

2. Broadcasting Cost Far More Smaller & Far More Profitable:
The Second Big Change for College Football is what you described and that is being worked on as we blog, with much competition, and new models, that technology can change almost every 2 to 3 years, not 10 anymore? I won't go into those details because Posters already hate my long posts and we all want to discuss more Football. Therefore, right there proves it, even rival's Bloggers want to know and discuss about Coaches, Recruits, Players, Training, Depth Charts, Schedules, Games, and do it everyday, Just like we Agreed it is about the "GAME" and those playing and coaching them. ESPN is trying to figure it out, but in reality, they will be bought up, changed, and someone smarter will do it, like you said and at far less costs but way more money to keep at the end of each day, and every day, not just on Game Day!

Good Post by you and far more concise and only a few know what you are saying but our Lair Posters know far more than most, and just like some Lame Fans and Cult Dolts that are drunk or get drunk in the stands, one does not want to sit by them, let alone listen to them when the only thing they have in common is believing like North Koreans, Bigger Is Better, & they think they Win somehow that way, when it is actually those that play the Game, not them in anyway! Smart Beats Dumb!

This is why the Lair Attracts Smarter Posters from other Programs that come here to argue, discuss, and exchange with all to Share what we read and learn together!

Thank You for proving it!

Really? Comparing college stadiums to North Korea? A new subset of Godwin's law? Well done!

 

[SVPanther]

That explains your desire to win nearly impossible arguments. If you want to take down the D1 sports system, go back to employment law. That has a chance of working. Getting the American public to stop generating huge amounts of TV revenue for the big college conferences, not so much.

But I don't do employment law. Do you? (Just in case a referral opportunity comes up).

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Really? Comparing college stadiums to North Korea? A new subset of Godwin's law? Well done!

Facts are Facts, you don't know them, you can't argue them? Go check on the largest Stadiums in the world right now. North Koreans build big buildings, and have the largest world Stadium, as an example for Political Propaganda as they cannot even themselves and use it preach and threaten all their people, look everything is well.

Downsizing and building smaller Athletic Stadium fro Every Day Productive Use to make money not just a few games is not a trend but they way make current and future money........the biggest money is not in attendance anymore and has not been for along time, you not knowing it must have that in common with North Koreans!

My discussion was with Counselor10 on a subject he brought up and is spot on, and none of it had to deal with own post, I saw no reason to respond to any of your other posts that you are discussing with others!

BTW, Godwin is now at Tamp Bay!

 

[revampedpanthers]

The ACC Network does not go live until 2019. With the continuing deterioration of ESPN's subscriber base, it would not be unreasonable for ESPN to junk the idea and not move forward.
In that event, the whole "Grant of Rights" become problematic. After all, the intent was more to leverage the conference negotiating as a block on the theory that the revenue yield would be greater than if schools negotiated separately.
So, if ESPN puts the kybosh to the ACC Network, then the conference is left negotiating a much smaller package.
So what's a reasonable AD to do? Look to see what better deal might be had with another conference or, some ACC schools banding together to do their own network thing which obviously works against the interest of schools with less of a following.
Just throwing it out there, but the cost cutting at ESPN shows no end and the ACC Network would be a prime target to cut.

Cutting the ACC network won't save espn any money. They will get a rate for the network from cable and satellite providers and pass a percentage on to the ACC. If subscribers are lower then the ACC and espn won't get as much money but most of those games are going to be produced anyhow so there is no real savings by not having the network. Also I believe the ACC has a clause that they get a certain amount if ESPN doesn't do the ACC network, not sure but I think its 5 million a school.

 

[SVPanther]

Cutting the ACC network won't save espn any money. They will get a rate for the network from cable and satellite providers and pass a percentage on to the ACC. If subscribers are lower then the ACC and espn won't get as much money but most of those games are going to be produced anyhow so there is no real savings by not having the network. Also I believe the ACC has a clause that they get a certain amount if ESPN doesn't do the ACC network, not sure but I think its 5 million a school.

Source?