How can an internet-only ACC network make money?

[Jpripper88]

Keep in mind the advertising dollars the nfl is moving towards an online limited package I believe for a certain games. That's a lot of clicks for online advertising dollars. I could see a way for the ACC to make revenue .

Sorry? Are you saying the NFL is moving to coverage of games online? They did the game in UK online and it was a pretty big failure, beyond the NFL adding a potential rights bidder for future negotiations. Yahoo! seemingly was way off with their revenue and sales and the true viewership was paltry, despite the novelty and the fact it was as easy to find online as it possibly could be.

Otherwise, the only online packages the NFL has really offered is in the form of after game On Demand, which ESPN3 also already does.

 

[ThePanthers]

The ACC is simply screwed for dragging their feet. Other conferences were more aggressive and will reap the rewards until the cable mafia ends.

They did not drag their feet. But in your simple world, they did.

 

[ThePanthers]

ESPN3 isnt exactly "free." ESPN gets a carriage fee for it.

What I am trying to tell you is the numbers don't work. A digital only cannot make money right now. I am asking you to give me some hypothetical numbers which will allow the digital only subscription model to make money. I contend that its basically impossible and if thats all we get, its the equivalent of ESPN saying "no" to the network question. The ACC and ESPN has to squeeze out enough money from the masses as long as the cable model is here. In case you haven't noticed, rights fees keep going up. The NBA, the EPL, Big Ten, CFP, etc.

So, again, give me some hypotheticals. I'd love to see it.

OK. 100 Million people live in the ACC footprint. They all sign up for $100 a year. GAZILLIONS!

 

[ThePanthers]

I say it won't be a monster, if it is a stand alone, because the ACC doesn't have even close to the appeal and following of SEC or B1G, so they will, at least, remain behind those. I'm not even sure the ACC could rival the subscriptions of those leagues if ALL of their content was on a stand alone network vs just 3rd tier type stuff for B1G and SEC.

I agree even if there is a standalone, or whatever it is, it is not going to catch the BIG or the SEC. Even the ACC leadership knows that and has stated it along with school leaders. Like you said, there is far more alumni and appeal, especially in the SEC where that is life.

The key is to have a better TV deal, whether it's increased rights fees, standalone network, digital network, whatever, to close the gap and keep the ACC within the ballpark of it's peers.

And the ACC leadership and ESPN, just from hearing quotes and whatever little people have stated, seem to think that is possible.

 

[Jpripper88]

I agree even if there is a standalone, or whatever it is, it is not going to catch the BIG or the SEC. Even the ACC leadership knows that and has stated it along with school leaders. Like you said, there is far more alumni and appeal, especially in the SEC where that is life.

The key is to have a better TV deal, whether it's increased rights fees, standalone network, digital network, whatever, to close the gap and keep the ACC within the ballpark of it's peers.

And the ACC leadership and ESPN, just from hearing quotes and whatever little people have stated, seem to think that is possible.

Yeah, we shall see. I think it probably falls way, way short either way, but is an absolute disaster if it is an all streaming service.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

They don't have the product to charge a lot more than that. They certainly don't have the product to charge 2 or 3 times that. We are talking about the leftovers of football and basketball and then sports that nobody watches. The NFL's popularity is much, much broader and it only costs $250 a year to get every single game and still only has less than 2 million paying subscribers. We are talking about half the teams, waaaay fewer fans, and way less games. In fact, for the top programs we are talking about 1, maybe 2, games a year. Are Clemson/FSU fans going to pay $100+ a year to see them play Charleston Southern and a handful of cupcake basketball games?

You are seriously, seriously, missing the point on the Sunday Ticket package. They charge $250 per year, but in reality that is $250 for 17 weeks. And really it isn't even for 17 weeks, it's for 17 days, days with two and only two game windows in it. That is already $15 per week, or $60 per month. And because people are willing to pay $60 per MONTH for an out of market package that NEVER includes the home town team's games you don't think that people will pay $50 per YEAR for a package that includes their team's games? An ACC network, like all the college network, will have significantly more content and will be running significantly longer over the course of the year and will actually show home team games in home team markets and you don't think that people will pay a little less for one full year than people are willing to pay for one month of 8 out of market NFL television windows?

Just out of curiosity, if the one and only way to watch half of the Stiller games in Pittsburgh was to subscribe to a pay per view package just how much money do you think that they would charge for it? If the only way to watch half the Pitt football games and 2/3 of the Pitt basketball games was a subscription service are you seriously suggesting that Pitt fans wouldn't be willing to pay more than $4 per month for that? Well, OK, Pitt fans are generally pathetic. Do you think that Duke fans wouldn't pay more than $4 per month to be able to watch 15 Duke basketball games? Or North Carolina fans wouldn't pay $4 per month to watch 15 North Carolina basketball games. Or Clemson fans wouldn't pay $4 per month to watch even one football game per month? Do you realize that $4 is less than you would pay for one pay per view movie with your cable or satellite provider? Do you realize that $4 per month is less than what you are paying right now for ESPN (just ESPN, not including any of the other ESPN channels)?

If a subscription only ACC channel couldn't charge more than $50 per year, much more than $50 per year, then it will be an abject failure. The ACC would be revealed as being much closer to conferences like the MAC and the Sun Belt than it would the other P5s.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You are seriously, seriously, missing the point on the Sunday Ticket package. They charge $250 per year, but in reality that is $250 for 17 weeks. And really it isn't even for 17 weeks, it's for 17 days, days with two and only two game windows in it. That is already $15 per week, or $60 per month. And because people are willing to pay $60 per MONTH for an out of market package that NEVER includes the home town team's games you don't think that people will pay $50 per YEAR for a package that includes their team's games? An ACC network, like all the college network, will have significantly more content and will be running significantly longer over the course of the year and will actually show home team games in home team markets and you don't think that people will pay a little less for one full year than people are willing to pay for one month of 8 out of market NFL television windows?

Just out of curiosity, if the one and only way to watch half of the Stiller games in Pittsburgh was to subscribe to a pay per view package just how much money do you think that they would charge for it? If the only way to watch half the Pitt football games and 2/3 of the Pitt basketball games was a subscription service are you seriously suggesting that Pitt fans wouldn't be willing to pay more than $4 per month for that? Well, OK, Pitt fans are generally pathetic. Do you think that Duke fans wouldn't pay more than $4 per month to be able to watch 15 Duke basketball games? Or North Carolina fans wouldn't pay $4 per month to watch 15 North Carolina basketball games. Or Clemson fans wouldn't pay $4 per month to watch even one football game per month? Do you realize that $4 is less than you would pay for one pay per view movie with your cable or satellite provider? Do you realize that $4 per month is less than what you are paying right now for ESPN (just ESPN, not including any of the other ESPN channels)?

If a subscription only ACC channel couldn't charge more than $50 per year, much more than $50 per year, then it will be an abject failure. The ACC would be revealed as being much closer to conferences like the MAC and the Sun Belt than it would the other P5s.

Here's the thing. All the games are free right now on ESPN3. How do you think its going to go over when Joe Pitt Fan finds out all the free stuff he was watching on ESPN3 will now cost $50 or $100 per year or more?

I'm asking for revenue projections. Take some guesses here. I did. At $50/year. I think they are extremely lucky to sell 500,000 and maybe as few as 100,000. People dont pay for sports on subscription apps. The ACC would certainly be the pioneer in this regard and that's not a bet I'd be willing to make.

What they might have to do is charge some ridiculous amount, like $500 and put MOST ACC games on there, FSU/Clemson, Duke/UNC, ACC Tournament, etc and try to gouge the true diehards. If 8 FSU and Clemson games and 20 UNC hoops games were on there, maybe they could get that but the uproar from the fanbase would be unbelievable and fans would be overloading blogs and message boards ready to get out of this conference.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Here's the thing. All the games are free right now on ESPN3. How do you think its going to go over when Joe Pitt Fan finds out all the free stuff he was watching on ESPN3 will now cost $50 or $100 per year or more?

The same way Joe Ohio State fan feels when his cable bill goes up because ESPN signed the Big Ten to a new, higher paying rights deal or when his cable company added the Big Ten Network. The same way that Joe Yankee Fan feels when the YES network started and he had to pay more money to his cable company to pay for it. The same way Joe Penguin Fan feels when the Penguins get a new television contract and they have to pay more money to their cable company to pay for it. And so on, and so on.

No one is ever "happy" about paying more money. And yet people pay more money, all the time, for all sorts of stuff. Welcome to the real world.

 

[Jpripper88]

You are seriously, seriously, missing the point on the Sunday Ticket package. They charge $250 per year, but in reality that is $250 for 17 weeks. And really it isn't even for 17 weeks, it's for 17 days, days with two and only two game windows in it. That is already $15 per week, or $60 per month. And because people are willing to pay $60 per MONTH for an out of market package that NEVER includes the home town team's games you don't think that people will pay $50 per YEAR for a package that includes their team's games? An ACC network, like all the college network, will have significantly more content and will be running significantly longer over the course of the year and will actually show home team games in home team markets and you don't think that people will pay a little less for one full year than people are willing to pay for one month of 8 out of market NFL television windows?

Just out of curiosity, if the one and only way to watch half of the Stiller games in Pittsburgh was to subscribe to a pay per view package just how much money do you think that they would charge for it? If the only way to watch half the Pitt football games and 2/3 of the Pitt basketball games was a subscription service are you seriously suggesting that Pitt fans wouldn't be willing to pay more than $4 per month for that? Well, OK, Pitt fans are generally pathetic. Do you think that Duke fans wouldn't pay more than $4 per month to be able to watch 15 Duke basketball games? Or North Carolina fans wouldn't pay $4 per month to watch 15 North Carolina basketball games. Or Clemson fans wouldn't pay $4 per month to watch even one football game per month? Do you realize that $4 is less than you would pay for one pay per view movie with your cable or satellite provider? Do you realize that $4 per month is less than what you are paying right now for ESPN (just ESPN, not including any of the other ESPN channels)?

If a subscription only ACC channel couldn't charge more than $50 per year, much more than $50 per year, then it will be an abject failure. The ACC would be revealed as being much closer to conferences like the MAC and the Sun Belt than it would the other P5s.

You won't get that many Pitt football or basketball games, though. That's the biggest problem here. And those big programs? You might get 1 football game. So the schools with the big rabid fanbases you are asking to spend $100-150 on 1 cupcake football game and their 4-10 worst basketball games and the latter only applies if they are out of market because otherwise they probably already get it. Maybe you just aren't familiar with the content that is offered on the SECN and B1GN. NFL has extremely broad appeal and in the scheme of things their 2M represents very few of their fans or possible subscribers.

I understand the Sunday Ticket package completely and people pay $15 a day for every game and many fans otherwise have no other way to watch 12-15 of their teams games, plus they get every game, including the best ones of the week, no matter their location. Let's say the ACCN is 1/2 for football and 1/2 basketball at $120 a year, which is between what you proposed they would need. So, as a Pitt fan, I maybe get 3 games, so we pay $20 for each game. The big and ready to spend fanbases like Clemson and FSU? They have 1 game on, so their fans are paying $60 for 1 game and it is vs Charleston Southern or Troy. Then Pitt fans are paying for roughly 4-10 of their worst basketball games, so benefit of the doubt it is $6 a game. Basketball side is the opposite for UNC/Duke (who actually has a very small real fanbase that would pay for content vs people who "cheer for Duke") in you get those 4-10 games, but obviously that is where more of their fans care, so maybe there is value, still, it is hard to see more than 8 games of content and 6 of them would be essential scrimmages.

There is no chance the ACC will get enough stand alone streaming subscribers to make more than $25M in revenue. That is 500k at $50 a year. I'd be surprised if they could get more than 350k subscribers at that price with the content they would be able to provide. They would have absolutely 0 valuable content from March-September and the games they have from September-February would have very little value because the league followings pale in comparison to the SEC and B1G. Really, even the basketball content that would be available would largely be in October-December and face competition from many other sports, including their own football. And even those leagues would have almost no chance of getting $100 or $150 out of enough of their fans for similar content.

And of course I realize $4 a month is less than I pay for ESPN. I hate ESPN, but I absolutely love the bundle because I still get incredible value from all the people who don't care at all paying the same thing. That is why the system right now is great for sports fans.

So, to sum it up, let's say we just compare the football content of NFLN and a potential streaming ACCN and give you all the benefit of the doubt. My NFL team is really good and they have 4 Nationally televised games, so I get 12 other games via Sunday ticket and then EVERY OTHER NFL game the entire year for $250. I paid about $20 for my teams game and got EVERY OTHER NFL game (about 180 games I couldn't otherwise get) as my throw in. The ACCN charges $120 and I get maybe 4 of my teams (way less if you are Clemson/FSU and probably lower average) games and 3 other games a week (so about 42 games) as my throw in. So I pay $30 per game for my teams games and get 42 other games over 14 weeks, which are almost all awful games at usually bad times.

Yep, that won't work.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The same way Joe Ohio State fan feels when his cable bill goes up because ESPN signed the Big Ten to a new, higher paying rights deal or when his cable company added the Big Ten Network. The same way that Joe Yankee Fan feels when the YES network started and he had to pay more money to his cable company to pay for it. The same way Joe Penguin Fan feels when the Penguins get a new television contract and they have to pay more money to their cable company to pay for it. And so on, and so on.

No one is ever "happy" about paying more money. And yet people pay more money, all the time, for all sorts of stuff. Welcome to the real world.

You realize the difference though right? Those costs are hidden mostly. Its much difference than asking Pitt fans to enter their CC info so they can separately purchase the ACC app.

For example, Comcast now charges $5 extra per month for a "Regional Sports Network fee." You guys are big time sports fans and I'd bet most of you didnt even know that.......and its on your bill for you to see.

If there was an ACC linear channel and your bill went from $123 to $124, few people would notice.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

My NFL team is really good and they have 4 Nationally televised games, so I get 12 other games via Sunday ticket and then EVERY OTHER NFL game the entire year for $250.

No, if you live in the home market of your team you get ZERO of your team's games on the Sunday Ticket package. Zero, not 12.

If the ACC would switch to a subscription model it's obvious that their other mix of games would change. Teams would be guaranteed to play on the network so many times each year for football and for basketball. The schools are going to want (need) the network to succeed, so there isn't going to just be one Clemson game per year on there, there will be several. There won't be one Florida State game on there, there will be several. There won't be just a couple Duke basketball games on there, there will be a much higher percentage. And so on. Because it's going to be in the conferences best interest for this to succeed, as much as it possibly can. And the only way to do that is to put some big games on there every year. It would mean less games on the ESPN channels for sure. But if the ACC were to do this they have to make it work for the survival of the league. Simply have to. And it would most definitely mean that ACC fans would have to pay more to see their team's games. $50 per season wouldn't be enough, and it wouldn't be close to being enough. Anyone who understands simple math can see that.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

And it would most definitely mean that ACC fans would have to pay more to see their team's games. $50 per season wouldn't be enough, and it wouldn't be close to being enough. Anyone who understands simple math can see that.

We agree on that but does anyone believe ENOUGH ACC fans are going to pay $100, $200, $500 per year to watch games on an app when they currently watch them for free?

If the network is Internet-only, I'm going to tell you how much ESPN will charge: $0. Because they arent that stupid. They know asking people to pay for that is a losing propositon, waste of time, and will just alienate ACC fans. They wont charge anything. Of course, the ACC wont make any money but at that point, a conference network that makes money isnt the point. Its ESPN's way of telling the ACC, "no network" but we'll move games off ESPN3 to an ACC app and act like its some great thing.

 

[ThePanthers]

We agree on that but does anyone believe ENOUGH ACC fans are going to pay $100, $200, $500 per year to watch games on an app when they currently watch them for free?

If the network is Internet-only, I'm going to tell you how much ESPN will charge: $0. Because they arent that stupid. They know asking people to pay for that is a losing propositon, waste of time, and will just alienate ACC fans. They wont charge anything. Of course, the ACC wont make any money but at that point, a conference network that makes money isnt the point. Its ESPN's way of telling the ACC, "no network" but we'll move games off ESPN3 to an ACC app and act like its some great thing.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

And you're not talking about anything. Have an original idea. Have a thought. I asked you to give me some hypotheticals on how it can make money and you still haven't. What are you afraid of? And no, you're sarcastic gazillion dollar answer doesnt count. Give me some numbers.

 

[ThePanthers]

And you're not talking about anything. Have an original idea. Have a thought. I asked you to give me some hypotheticals on how it can make money and you still haven't. What are you afraid of? And no, you're sarcastic gazillion dollar answer doesnt count. Give me some numbers.

I'm willing to admit that I don't know the answers. There are guys that are making a shit load of money and are experts in the business that will make these decisions. If it was going to be a disaster and not make money, they wouldn't go forward with anything and would just give increased rights fees. If they move forward, both sides, people that live and breath this, feel that it will make money.

ESPN, outside of a few hiccups (LHN) have been pretty damn good at that.

 

[HailtoPitt]

They did not drag their feet. But in your simple world, they did.

Do they have a network?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I'm willing to admit that I don't know the answers. There are guys that are making a shit load of money and are experts in the business that will make these decisions. If it was going to be a disaster and not make money, they wouldn't go forward with anything and would just give increased rights fees. If they move forward, both sides, people that live and breath this, feel that it will make money.

ESPN, outside of a few hiccups (LHN) have been pretty damn good at that.

I would think you know enough about the industry to come up with some rudimentary projections. They might be way off. So what. Mine might be also.

55 posts in and so far Joe has been the only person that has attempted to answer the question saying theu will have to charge a lot more than $50/year.

What I am trying to explain is that an internet-only network is NOTHING. In fact, if that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACC gets an increased rights fee also because as I say, in the year 2017 or 2018, an internet-oy network is nothing. It cant make money. There's just no way.

This is why I say that ESPN may give them the increased rights fee for not doing a real network, but move games off of ESPN3 and onto the new ACC ESPN app and pretend to the public like its some revolutionary thing when in reality, its just moving games with a few mouse clicks.

 

[ThePanthers]

Do they have a network?

Has nothing to do with dragging their feet.

 

[ThePanthers]

I would think you know enough about the industry to come up with some rudimentary projections. They might be way off. So what. Mine might be also.

55 posts in and so far Joe has been the only person that has attempted to answer the question saying theu will have to charge a lot more than $50/year.

What I am trying to explain is that an internet-only network is NOTHING. In fact, if that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACC gets an increased rights fee also because as I say, in the year 2017 or 2018, an internet-oy network is nothing. It cant make money. There's just no way.

This is why I say that ESPN may give them the increased rights fee for not doing a real network, but move games off of ESPN3 and onto the new ACC ESPN app and pretend to the public like its some revolutionary thing when in reality, its just moving games with a few mouse clicks.

So ESPN is going to give increased rights fees, and go into a partnership that is NOTHING and won't make any additional money. OK.

 

[yourhired]

PAC 12 today announced partnership to stream games via Twitter.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

So ESPN is going to give increased rights fees, and go into a partnership that is NOTHING and won't make any additional money. OK.

No, I think there will be a traditional channel. That's my prediction. I dont think there will be a subscription-based streaming service.

I am saying that if they DONT agree to a traditional channel, ESPN will increase rights fees AND move games off of ESPN3 onto the new free app, mostly for the purpose of propoganda, trying to convince fans the ACC got a network when it didnt.

Still waiting for your projections.

 

[ThePanthers]

No, I think there will be a traditional channel. That's my prediction. I dont think there will be a subscription-based streaming service.

I am saying that if they DONT agree to a traditional channel, ESPN will increase rights fees AND move games off of ESPN3 onto the new free app, mostly for the purpose of propoganda, trying to convince fans the ACC got a network when it didnt.

Still waiting for your projections.

WHAT PROJECTIONS DO YOU WANT? I'm not going to make shit up and act like I know exactly what will happen. I said that a million times. My god are you dense.

I don't know if they will go traditional or not. But if they decide to do a digital based network, it's not going to be to hoodwink ACC fans to think they got a network. It will be because both parties believe that they can generate revenue from that move.

And again, they may very well go the traditional route with some digital aspects to it. We won't know until they announce.

But the whole concept that a digital path is NOTHING is ridiculous IMO. If it was truly nothing, ESPN and the ACC would just increase rights fees and not change anything.

 

[PSU_Nut]

On the other hand, if cable is truly a dying breed, and subscribers are ditching it by the millions each year, how is the old model going to be able to sustain the revenue they are generating now? With less viewers, advertisers are going to be paying less, and the next negotiations for carriage fees are probably going to yield less revenue as well.

These are smart people running these businesses. The internet/app based technology revenue generation could be completely different in a few years. If people are cutting cable and going to these apps, eventually they will be paying just as much if not more to watch these events. Businesses like ESPN/ FOX/ etc know how to make money, whether it's the traditional way like now, or somehow in the future. The customers may be saving money now during the technology transition, but at some point in time, they will be paying just as much.

ESPN could be releasing it's own Netflix type channel and combining digital broadcasts together in a package to make it more enticing for people to sign up. They just purchased part of the MLB digital network and could be adding the ACC in there as well. And if they do that, I could see them dropping ESPN3 and making people pay to watch that content going forward.

It's interesting times right now in the cable world. There are very smart people on both sides working on not only making money for the ACC, but ESPN as well. It will generate revenue. The question is how much and when.

And on top of that, no one really knows what these ESPN/ACC network project will be and what it will entail. We just pretty much know that it will be happening.

They are not losing subscriber in the millions. Cable lost 345,000 subscribers last year, but over all pay TV subscribers because of non traditional providers like Sling TV. Even if it starts declining it not wise to ignore the almost 100 million who currently subscribe to one of the services. It also doesn't have to be an either or deal. You can have both.

 

[Jpripper88]

No, if you live in the home market of your team you get ZERO of your team's games on the Sunday Ticket package. Zero, not 12.

If the ACC would switch to a subscription model it's obvious that their other mix of games would change. Teams would be guaranteed to play on the network so many times each year for football and for basketball. The schools are going to want (need) the network to succeed, so there isn't going to just be one Clemson game per year on there, there will be several. There won't be one Florida State game on there, there will be several. There won't be just a couple Duke basketball games on there, there will be a much higher percentage. And so on. Because it's going to be in the conferences best interest for this to succeed, as much as it possibly can. And the only way to do that is to put some big games on there every year. It would mean less games on the ESPN channels for sure. But if the ACC were to do this they have to make it work for the survival of the league. Simply have to. And it would most definitely mean that ACC fans would have to pay more to see their team's games. $50 per season wouldn't be enough, and it wouldn't be close to being enough. Anyone who understands simple math can see that.

Incorrect. If you live in the home market you will get all of your team's games, so if that is all you care about, you don't buy Sunday Ticket. Boom done.

Let me get this straight, you think Florida State and Clemson football or Duke and UNC basketball are going to pass up huge paydays and national exposure on ABC/ESPN to play on a streaming subscription service. Holy hell. If they did make that absolutely idiotic decision, you are talking about a complete and TOTAL overhaul of the ACC TV contracts. And let's be real; you are talking about taking these games off the screens of recruits because the vast, vast majority do not come from homes that are going to (be able to) pay $100-150 a year to watch ACC football/basketball.

 

[ThePanthers]

They are not losing subscriber in the millions. Cable lost 345,000 subscribers last year, but over all pay TV subscribers because of non traditional providers like Sling TV. Even if it starts declining it not wise to ignore the almost 100 million who currently subscribe to one of the services. It also doesn't have to be an either or deal. You can have both.

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/e...ubscribers-as-cord-cutting-accelerates-052816

 

[Jpripper88]

PAC 12 today announced partnership to stream games via Twitter.

Again, that does not include Football, Basketball, or even Baseball. It is absolutely meaningless. It was a PR move, which still hasn't presented its hollowness to most.

 

[President Stache]

There is so much disinformation and crazy talk on this thread.

First... OF COURSE it could make money. There is no doubt about it. Most huge money makers are internet only... amazon, facebook, netflix, linkedin, on and on...

Secondly, I have directv, I pay 63 dollars a month, and get all the channels I want. Now i have a grandfathered package, but Im happy with it. Customer service totally sucks with directv, but I doubt the cable company is any better. I got directv in 1996 though and had it ever since.

Yes, there is a limit on how much anyone will spend. I had sunday ticket for 14 years. My first subscription to it was 29 dollars for the year. In 2012 they upped it to something like 199, then 299 then last year was 349 or something like that. I havent had it at all. Luckily, I am a Steeler fan and I get at least half the games on game of the week type things (usually 2 monday nights, 2 sunday nights, a thursday night, and 3 or 4 games of the week). Id never get sunday ticket again, its just not worth it to me. I think paying in essence about 40 dollars to watch a steeler game from your house is crazy. Id rather go to a sports bar, get a meal and a beer and watch it. On the other hand, I have the mlb and college bball package each year, its really cheap in my opinion. Mlb is about 39 cents per game only. No brainer, I love baseball. college bball is equally as cheap, and I paid for that even though I do get most all the games for free on espn on my kids xbox. Would I pay a dollar or 2 a game to watch Pitt football from my home? Yeah, absolutely, if the service was there and the quality is decent. Would I pay 20 dollars a game to watch? No way. And I would be pissed because, as I said maybe times in the past I have seen EVERY PITT football game the past 3 years for free on tv down here in the south.

Usually there is no ads or very few ads on espn3. I would prefer as a start they try to generate cash from advertisements first, then look to us, or give the option like Pandora does and pay for ad free?

Streaming is the future... period. Bundling sucks, it wont be there forever. If I could pick my directv channels, I would probably have about 25 channels, and that is adding about 15 that I almost never watch, like AMC for better call saul of something. If they went up, I would just buy a hulu package, or go stream on any number of free and illegal sites out there.

 

[Jpripper88]

There is so much disinformation and crazy talk on this thread.

First... OF COURSE it could make money. There is no doubt about it. Most huge money makers are internet only... amazon, facebook, netflix, linkedin, on and on...

Secondly, I have directv, I pay 63 dollars a month, and get all the channels I want. Now i have a grandfathered package, but Im happy with it. Customer service totally sucks with directv, but I doubt the cable company is any better. I got directv in 1996 though and had it ever since.

Yes, there is a limit on how much anyone will spend. I had sunday ticket for 14 years. My first subscription to it was 29 dollars for the year. In 2012 they upped it to something like 199, then 299 then last year was 349 or something like that. I havent had it at all. Luckily, I am a Steeler fan and I get at least half the games on game of the week type things (usually 2 monday nights, 2 sunday nights, a thursday night, and 3 or 4 games of the week). Id never get sunday ticket again, its just not worth it to me. I think paying in essence about 40 dollars to watch a steeler game from your house is crazy. Id rather go to a sports bar, get a meal and a beer and watch it. On the other hand, I have the mlb and college bball package each year, its really cheap in my opinion. Mlb is about 39 cents per game only. No brainer, I love baseball. college bball is equally as cheap, and I paid for that even though I do get most all the games for free on espn on my kids xbox. Would I pay a dollar or 2 a game to watch Pitt football from my home? Yeah, absolutely, if the service was there and the quality is decent. Would I pay 20 dollars a game to watch? No way. And I would be pissed because, as I said maybe times in the past I have seen EVERY PITT football game the past 3 years for free on tv down here in the south.

Usually there is no ads or very few ads on espn3. I would prefer as a start they try to generate cash from advertisements first, then look to us, or give the option like Pandora does and pay for ad free?

Streaming is the future... period. Bundling sucks, it wont be there forever. If I could pick my directv channels, I would probably have about 25 channels, and that is adding about 15 that I almost never watch, like AMC for better call saul of something. If they went up, I would just buy a hulu package, or go stream on any number of free and illegal sites out there.

1. e-commerce & social media are nothing like live sports
2. If you are a sports fan and wanted basically no other channels, you would pay more if there were no more bundles. Bundles are the best friend of the sports fan and the best friend with benefits of the sports fan with a family. The sports channels are unbelievably supplemented by users who have no real interest in them, but have them in their bundles.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

WHAT PROJECTIONS DO YOU WANT? I'm not going to make shit up and act like I know exactly what will happen. I said that a million times. My god are you dense.

I don't know if they will go traditional or not. But if they decide to do a digital based network, it's not going to be to hoodwink ACC fans to think they got a network. It will be because both parties believe that they can generate revenue from that move.

And again, they may very well go the traditional route with some digital aspects to it. We won't know until they announce.

But the whole concept that a digital path is NOTHING is ridiculous IMO. If it was truly nothing, ESPN and the ACC would just increase rights fees and not change anything.

I am not asking you to make things up. I am asking you to back up your opinion with some original thought. You think an internet-only network can make money. That is your opinion and I respect that. I am simply asking you to show how you arrived at that opinion. Inotherwords, use your college education to run some numbers and think a little. I did and I showed why I think it wont work. Maybe I am wrong and you can show me how.

You know a good amount about the industry but I cant believe you seem to be so naive about internet only networks. So, again, do some math, estimate demand, etc. I'm not asking you to take all day. Take 10 minutes and show me the math that makes an internet-based network make money.

 

[HailtoPitt]

1. e-commerce & social media are nothing like live sports
2. If you are a sports fan and wanted basically no other channels, you would pay more if there were no more bundles. Bundles are the best friend of the sports fan and the best friend with benefits of the sports fan with a family. The sports channels are unbelievably supplemented by users who have no real interest in them, but have them in their bundles.

Sports fans are also supplementing other channels. The cable companies try to present this as a win-win, but in reality it's more like a tax on over 100 million American households. NCAA football brings in way more money than it's really worth, as ESPN takes their money cable welfare payment from those 100 million households and distributes much of that money to help schools fund their disgustingly increasing athletics revenue.

 

[jabba2]

If 11000 alums/fans of every school decide to pay a $100 yearly subscription to the ACC channel that comes out to roughly $17m per year total. That is barely enough to keep a network running unless advertisers get onboard

 

[Jpripper88]

Sports fans are also supplementing other channels. The cable companies try to present this as a win-win, but in reality it's more like a tax on over 100 million American households. NCAA football brings in way more money than it's really worth, as ESPN takes their money cable welfare payment from those 100 million households and distributes much of that money to help schools fund their disgustingly increasing athletics revenue.

They are supplementing other channels, sure, but the by far winner is the sports channels and it isn't really close.

 

[Jpripper88]

If 11000 alums/fans of every school decide to pay a $100 yearly subscription to the ACC channel that comes out to roughly $17m per year total. That is barely enough to keep a network running unless advertisers get onboard

Definitely. They'd need at least double that to have any value and that is if the content and other contracts are the same. If part of the deal (like Joe is saying) is drastically changing the content available to a new streaming subscription service and thus removing them from other TV deals, I can't even imagine how much money would need to be made up, but there is no chance it would work, so it definitely won't happen.

 

[jabba2]

If you ditched every TV contract and started over online you would need something like 3M subscribers paying $100 every year to get 300M total for the conference which is roughly 18M per school. If the ACC has 16 members which I think it does. This doesnt include advertising.

 

[rutgersdave]

Networks don't charge for commercials based on distribution, they charged based on the expected number of viewers. If they don't get the expected number of viewers they generally either have to refund some of the advertiser's money or they have to give them "make good" ads.

When the system fully gets switched over to a subscription based model you are going to be paying a hell of a lot more than $50 per year for a subscription. You already pay a hell of a lot more than $50 per year just to get ESPN, even though most people don't know that.

By way of comparison the channel in England that shows most of the Premier League games charges the equivalent of about $35 PER MONTH for the service.

I would think that $30 a month for the ACC would be a reasonable fee. I don't know how many would be willing to pay for it? you have to realize that the ACC teams have smaller fan bases but the higher fees might make going to the game cheaper. I really don't think there's much revenue in an ACC internet channel.

I worked in cable, Westinghouse cable, when they started to advertise on the cable channel in the early 1980's. We barely could sell the product especially in the smaller markets. When the ACC channel is no longer on cable, the commercial inventory will double since they don't need to share it with the cable companies.

 

[rutgersdave]

If you ditched every TV contract and started over online you would need something like 3M subscribers paying $100 every year to get 300M total for the conference which is roughly 18M per school. If the ACC has 16 members which I think it does. This doesnt include advertising.

3 million subscribers? Lol

Are there any Boston College or Syracuse fans willing to pay?

 

[jabba2]

3 million subscribers? Lol

Its not impossible but it is difficult to work unless advertisers get onboard and double the revenue.

 

[Jpripper88]

Its not impossible but it is difficult to work unless advertisers get onboard and double the revenue.

Oh, 3M subscribers at $100 per would be impossible. No doubt about that. Let's say we count Notre Dame (even though their product surely wouldn't be included) and throw in a 16th spit for "rabid" NCAAF/B fans (which wouldn't even approach their share) and you would still need to a 187K subscribers per ACC fanbase. Absolutely and completely impossible. I bet BC and Wake couldn't account for 90K total.

And then you miss the value of now being out of almost every recruit's living room.

This is either a cable channel they try to get into a bundle or it is a streaming option that they realize makes almost no money right now, but perhaps generates covering revenue and sets the stage for a change they see in the future.

 

[rutgersdave]

Its not impossible but it is difficult to work unless advertisers get onboard and double the revenue.

When cable finally unbundle the cable channels. ESPN revenue will drop by 30-40% because a significant number of subscribers don't watch sports. In the last year, I stopped watching ESPN because of the slanted reporting. The SEC and B10 channels will also drop dramatically but will continue will significant cost reductions and it's not worth it for a ACC channel.

All those stupid cable channels will disappear also which is great. The WE, Golf channel, E channels and more will be gone. Your cable bill will go down but your internet bill goes up and overall you won't have any savings because the cable companies want their profits.

 

[rutgersdave]

Sports fans are also supplementing other channels. The cable companies try to present this as a win-win, but in reality it's more like a tax on over 100 million American households. NCAA football brings in way more money than it's really worth, as ESPN takes their money cable welfare payment from those 100 million households and distributes much of that money to help schools fund their disgustingly increasing athletics revenue.

If the bundling goes away, the TV revenue to each school goes down tremendously. NFL and NBA teams will get less revenue and all the contracts will need to be negotiated. ESPN gets hit hard on the revenue.