ESPN gets second half of BIG contract
- Thread starter ThePanthers
- Start date
GREAT NEWS. We can continue to have access to every single BIG game every single week. Great for catching up on my sleep.
Yeah, so finally can ESPN give an answer on ACCN now? Seems everything else out of the way for them.
I think after the SECN, ESPN has been focusing on the ACCN regardless of what the BIG did.
In order for it to be profitable from the get go, ESPN has to time it with the renegotiations of contracts with the cable distributors in order to package it with their other networks to get the most bang for their buck, just like they did with the SECN.
That timing has been speculated to be around 2017 or 2018. Always has been.
The BIG contract had nothing to do with the ACCN.
I guess people are watching them? Like me, I only watch Pitt games, so it's not a problem, so stop watching SEC and B1G games and maybe the ratings will drop. I mean I don't care at all, I haven't watched an SEC game in maybe 30 years. if Pitt's not on, I might watch some oddball game, like Ivy or D1-AA or Navy, but I never care to watch B1G or SEC. I might watch ACC because that impacts Pitt,
When Rutgers moved to the Big Ten, I watched more Big Ten games just to see who we will be playing. I suppose fans of each conferences are doing the same. With each Big Ten colleges having the larger alumni bases and also being in the most populated areas, they can get the most TV dollars available. The estimated share for each team is around $53 million for everything but Rutgers and Maryland will to wait for a full share
Contracts with distributors renew all the time. There is not one set schedule.
Clemsons' AD who is on the ACC TV board stated in an interview that the major providers Comcast, Time Warner, etc are coming up around 2018. This has been stated by others as well that are close to the project. It has been said for like 3 years now that if there is an ACC network it will be around 2017 or 2018, due to that very reason. People just dont' want to listen.
Even under that scenario, something definitive should be able to be made public like, now right?
Its 5 years into the deal.
Its 5 years into the deal.
It doesn't matter how long into the TV contract they are. What they are working on is a new partnership/channel, just like the SECNetwork did. They worked on it once they decided to go forward for like 3 years before it was announced. And it was announced about 16 months before it went on air.
Swofford/ESPN will not announce anything until a deal is made. He has stressed timing is a huge factor, and so has everyone close to the situation (ie. they need to wait for the right time to go to distribution if it is going to be profitable from the get go). Add in the factor that there is an ever changing cable environment, these things take time.
The GOR was a key piece as well to move forward, which was only signed 3 years ago I believe.
This is both good news and bad news for the ACC.
The good news: The roughly 3 BT games ESPN will continue to show each week means there will be enough ACC inventory to slide onto an ACCN.
The bad news: BT is gettin' paid.
The good news: The roughly 3 BT games ESPN will continue to show each week means there will be enough ACC inventory to slide onto an ACCN.
The bad news: BT is gettin' paid.
It was always going to be a long wait, because ESPN was always going to launch SECN first. The ACC was always going to have to wait until SECN was up and running first, and then ESPN would start working on an ACC network.
People are cutting cable, and ESPN was just forced to dump a bunch of contracts. Yet they still found the money to sign the B1G. So why hasn't the ACCN gotten taken care of again?
My guess is they will be waiting to see if the B12 or the ACC is the conference that is going to survive, and how much it will cost to get that conference signed in.
You need to time it correctly for distribution purposes so it is profitable from the beginning. It has been said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. The ACC leadership has said it over and over and over and over and over and over.
There is no waiting to see "which conference survives". That is fanboy messageboard crap.
Both sides want to maximize the revenue generated. You have to time it right. It is not a rights fee negotiation. It is completely different. SEC presidents wanted the SEC channel to launch in 2012. Slive correctly waited until 2014 when they could maximize the launch. His words in an interview, not mine.
Geez.
Why? They aren't joining for football. It has been known for a long time.
If there is going to be an ACC network, it will not have ND home football games as that belongs to NBC.
1) The ACC is way better off with ESPN. So much more exposure and money. The network if they go that direction will provide a significant amount more exposure as well as revenue.
2) ND seems to have no desire to play another game, and wants to remain independent.
3) NBC will continue to show the ND home games and little else. And NBC sports lttle reach. ESPN/ABC is a much better partner.
My personal opinion is as 2025 approaches ND may throw the ACC a bone by letting them have some limited rights to games the same way ND gave the ACC 5 games per year. They basically committed to be a half member the last go round. I just think the landscape with all of the money flying around makes joining a conference not as evil to ND. The only hurdle I see is that independence status that is important to ND. Of course I have absolutely no indications of the facts that ND analyzes. I think conference networks are a joke personally. I'm a huge sports guy, 24/7, and I can tell you that I've watched the Big10 Network less than 12 times in my life. For a grand total of 1-2 hrs. The content and product are unbearable IMO. The minute viewers have a choice on the channel menu all of these types of networks will be cut 80% or more. Nobody watches this crap.
ESPN is dropping people because they have learned that who is talking on there networks is not really important and people are watching no matter what. They make the people not the other way around.
scary what such money difference can mean. Purdue could some day outbid a UVA on a hot new coach.. You will see it first in coordinator positions. ACCN is going to be some on-line type deal if you ask me. Just too many small schools with even smaller percentage of alumni who even care about sports.. Add it up and there is probably 1/4 the number of ACC football fans as BIG fans today.
Miami and FSU chose the wrong decade to suck..
Miami and FSU chose the wrong decade to suck..
You didn't watch the Pitt-Iowa game on the BTN last year? There is 3 hr viewing right there.
So glad I cut cable last yr...
It's very rare that I miss a Pitt football game, and if I don't have tv access through my FREE HD antenna, I just hit up a local bar...happens probably twice a year.
Plus NO B1G network on my TVs... ever!!
Remember, the ACC is still stuck in the below market deal, but only for about 8 more years I think. That seems like a long time......and it is but the ACC will get market value in its next deal. That will still be less than the Big Ten. It always will be. But on the open market, the Big Ten is only worth about 20% more based on TV ratings......not the 50% more. The gap will lessen. So, yea Rutgers, Purdue, or NW can outbid NC St, GT, or UVa for coaches right now but only for the next 8 years....then the difference wont be so great.
nbc is trying to get into more college football. espn did not want to give b10 that much money but nbc and cbs both stepped up with big offers and espn felt like it had to. nbc really wanted it.
And ESPN is still showing they can and will outbid them. And ESPN has a ton more exposure than NBC Sports. Plus if an ACC Network is developed it will be in partnership with ESPN.
There is a reason the BIG picked ESPN over NBC/CBS.
I disagree on the 20% projection. If you add the total number of alumni interested in football between the BIG and ACC you would get a significant number. Their schools are all huge and have been into football forever. ACC schools are tiny in comparison and have a huge % of alumni that don't care... all you have to do is look at attendance. Louisville was a good pick up but I wish we also got WVU to be honest. Wish we could drop wake and BC
ESPN paying big money for Big Ten means less money for ACC. This probably works against a potential network.
Every quarter we hear how rights fees are combining with cord cutting to hurt ESPN's numbers for Disney. They're not giving up baseball, NFL, NBA, SEC, or the Big Ten. I just don't see this working out the way everyone is hoping.
Every quarter we hear how rights fees are combining with cord cutting to hurt ESPN's numbers for Disney. They're not giving up baseball, NFL, NBA, SEC, or the Big Ten. I just don't see this working out the way everyone is hoping.
Have to disagree here. I was discussing this on another board, and after looking at the numbers, I think the ACC has a better chance than you think. Another poster was claiming it would cost ESPN $1 million a day to run the network. From what I've read, that would appear to be on the on the high side, so let's use that number.
Now, here's a link that lists the revenue of the other networks. The SEC makes $546 million a year, Big Ten $370 million, and Pac 12 $56 million. http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/
Let's say the ACC can get $200 million a year. If we take off our $52 million operating cost, that's $148 million in the pot. Now, let's get stingy, and say the ACC only gets 25%. Split up among the schools, that's $2.6 million each.
Now this is the big point. That would leave ESPN with $111 million a year. If ESPN is hard up for money, I'd think $100 million a year would be good news for ESPN. I'll readily admit this is just me spitballing. I can't say for sure if those are the only expenses, and it's debatable if the ACC could bring that much revenue. However, it's certainly not an unreasonable estimate, given what the other networks make. The bottom line is that I think a network is much more realistic than you make it out to be, if they can generate enough subscriptions.
I noticed that MASN (DMV's RSN) runs ESPNews as filler in the morning. I never knew ESPN sold slots of ESPNews to RSN's.
This got me thinking if maybe this is could be a new business model for ESPNews. Turn ESPNews into ACCN and sell slots of ESPNews as filler for RSN as long as running 4-8 hours per day on ACCN. I just dont see the need for a 24/7 highlight channel in 2016.
This got me thinking if maybe this is could be a new business model for ESPNews. Turn ESPNews into ACCN and sell slots of ESPNews as filler for RSN as long as running 4-8 hours per day on ACCN. I just dont see the need for a 24/7 highlight channel in 2016.
Speculation is that if there is a traditional ACC network (there will be one of some form, just don't know if it's a traditional type), that they would share a lot of the same facilities the SECN is using in Charlotte so there would be a lot of shared cost.
Second, I don't know why people keep thinking a potential ACC Network means that ESPN has to shell out money like it's a right's fee. It would be totally different. It would be a totally different partnership where it would create it's own revenue and generate it's own expenses. It is completely different and separate from the rights fees the BIG just got paid. I don't know why people don't get that.
If it would lose money, they won't go forward. If they feel it would make money, it will go forward. But it is not a rights fee negotiation or where ESPN is paying additional money on top of what they already do.
Second, I don't know why people keep thinking a potential ACC Network means that ESPN has to shell out money like it's a right's fee. It would be totally different. It would be a totally different partnership where it would create it's own revenue and generate it's own expenses. It is completely different and separate from the rights fees the BIG just got paid. I don't know why people don't get that.
If it would lose money, they won't go forward. If they feel it would make money, it will go forward. But it is not a rights fee negotiation or where ESPN is paying additional money on top of what they already do.
Similar threads
