|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [12529]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 12245
Joined: 11/21/11
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [13035]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22352
Joined: 4/24/04
|
We're gonna be fine.
Jul 8, 2016, 10:56 PM
|
|
You seriously need to do something other than look for things to complain and worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Stand alone cable network
Jul 8, 2016, 11:02 PM
|
|
Would be a disaster for the ACC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95383
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Why?***
Jul 9, 2016, 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Why?***
Jul 9, 2016, 1:48 PM
|
|
A) Cable is dead. It is as antiquated as newspapers.
B) For the same reasons others have said re: demo of ACC fan base. Believe the result would be more like PAC 12 Network than SEC Network.
C) Don't own Tier 3 rights. Would have to buy them back from Raycom who also subleases to Fox
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [663]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 701
Joined: 1/16/04
|
Re: I'll you guys discuss this. If this is what the ACC Network
Jul 9, 2016, 12:03 AM
|
|
Yeah- that's not good. Many of those dollars flowing to SEC schools is coming from people charged against their will. As an all-volunteer enterprise the money would drop like a stone.
The two biggest strikes against it are (IMO)-
1) Football is king and the only thing I'd likely pay for. Without football, I wouldn't even subscribe to ESPN at all.
2) The two most rabid fan bases for ACC football are Clemson and FSU. As well as both are playing all but our dreariest D-2 games are televised somewhere anyway and should continue to be for several years to come. I suppose they might steal a couple of lower-tiered conference games to boost the product but I can't foresee enough content to make it sustaining much less the windfall Swoffie is imagining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6980
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: I'll you guys discuss this. If this is what the ACC Network
Jul 9, 2016, 11:18 AM
|
|
The network isn't about football. It is about basketball (not enough market to televise all games) and the Olympic sports. The SEC network doesn't get great football. ND and UNC have two of the largest national following and Olympic sports are a big deal. Tell duke, cause, UNC, and Louisville basketball fans they can't watch every game unless they have the service. Any network released means more money for the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95383
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Would you pay to watch ACC football is we set up the...
Jul 9, 2016, 1:08 PM
[ in reply to Re: I'll you guys discuss this. If this is what the ACC Network ] |
|
ACC Network on the web? Just how much and just how many seems to be questions near to being answered. Maybe the projections are in and positive.
The question is, 'Can ESPiN squeeze more money out of the consumers of college football?' If they can the ACC will increase profits too. Is it good for the ACC? That is exactly what is being discussed and negioated right now.
If ESPiN and the ACC believe that everyone will gain from the venture then they will work on the details. It seems to me they are now working on the details.
I agree with you on Clemson's situation. I don't care about FSU. We are able to view all Clemson's games now. That was not always true. I seriously doubt that I will live to see Clemson football fall to the level we were at in the mid nineties again but this is about Clemson, not me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [663]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 701
Joined: 1/16/04
|
Re: I'll you guys discuss this. If this is what the ACC Network
Jul 9, 2016, 12:09 AM
|
|
Yeah- that's not good. Many of those dollars flowing to SEC schools is coming from people charged against their will. As an all-volunteer enterprise the money would drop like a stone.
The two biggest strikes against it are (IMO)-
1) Football is king and the only thing I'd likely pay for. Without football, I wouldn't even subscribe to ESPN at all.
2) The two most rabid fan bases for ACC football are Clemson and FSU. As well as both are playing all but our dreariest D-2 games are televised somewhere anyway and should continue to be for several years to come. I suppose they might steal a couple of lower-tiered conference games to boost the product but I can't foresee enough content to make it sustaining much less the windfall Swoffie is imagining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [730]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 512
Joined: 1/20/16
|
Re: I'll you guys discuss this. If this is what the ACC Network
Jul 9, 2016, 7:47 AM
|
|
As if I needed another reason to hate both the ACC and Swofford! We always seem to be on the outside looking in and it WILL start effecting Clemson negatively to be a member of this crappy conference. Essentially, the ACC will be the "Guinea Pig" for this linear, stand alone, skinny bundle BS. We need $10-12 million per schools increased revenue to be able to compete with SEC and BIG10, NOW not 10 years from now when the reventue gap will be $20-25 million. Yes, we're screwed yet again by being a part of the official conference on NASCAR and Bojangles.....Fire this idiot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [24]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 35
Joined: 1/7/14
|
Re: I'll you guys discuss this. If this is what the ACC Network
Jul 9, 2016, 9:24 AM
|
|
The world where people pay for channels they don't watch is waning...this model, which made the SEC channel so profitable, will eventually produce less favorable results. Is ESPN using us as a Guinea Pig ? Absolutely. But streaming is here stay for the foreseeable future. This seems to be one of those situations where you evolve or get left behind. How much less revenue will this option provide...Don't know but I think our options are limited. The business model has changed and the ACC just happens to be the next league up. Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [730]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 512
Joined: 1/20/16
|
Re: I'll you guys discuss this. If this is what the ACC Network
Jul 9, 2016, 10:03 AM
|
|
You ststed your thoughts nicely and quite honestly, I haven't thought about this angle. Good points, something to ponder. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [730]
TigerPulse: 87%
Posts: 512
Joined: 1/20/16
|
Sorry I meant stated...***
Jul 9, 2016, 10:11 AM
|
|
Nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13035]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22352
Joined: 4/24/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [82973]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80112
Joined: 11/29/99
|
It's not Swofford's fault he heads up a conference of
Jul 9, 2016, 10:18 AM
[ in reply to Re: I'll you guys discuss this. If this is what the ACC Network ] |
|
smaller than average state schools and small private schools with no viewer demand for their own network. Now maybe if Miami, VT, and Pitt or Syracuse were to become football powers, that demand would increase. Even then, don't know if the demand would be there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40868]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42927
Joined: 11/30/98
|
We don't need no stinkin ESPN, we've got RAYCOM
Jul 9, 2016, 9:31 AM
|
|
and Chad Swofford's got our back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [51524]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43075
Joined: 8/10/04
|
I'd be worried if
Jul 9, 2016, 9:33 AM
|
|
I was an NC State fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [82973]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80112
Joined: 11/29/99
|
No demand for an ACC network. Even if it got up and running,
Jul 9, 2016, 10:11 AM
|
|
there's a good chance it would fail. Face it, the ACC just doesn't have the fan base of the SEC and Big Ten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95383
Joined: 12/25/09
|
An ACC network does not have to lose money to fail.
Jul 9, 2016, 12:38 PM
|
|
If it puts the ACC and/or ESPiN in a position of making less than we/it makes now it is declared to be a failed venture. 'A bird in the hand...'
The SEC and B1G are solid money makers at this time. The current directions of consumers is to cut cable and other services. Pressure is on the broadcaster and suppliers to cut cost. We can't be certain that the SEC and B1g networks will not be affected in the future. It's risky business to load a sports package and force those who do not want to view a channel to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95383
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You provide no support for your opinion.
Jul 9, 2016, 12:31 PM
|
|
I posted several links which expounded on the financial issues which beset ESPiN over the past year or two. They are losing money. The SEC network is not losing money but it is one of the few of ESPiN's ventures which hasn't. We've discussed their issues and it was made clear that this is the exact wrong time to enter an agreement with ESPiN on an ACC sports network.
ESPiN started losing money during the discussions with the ACC about a network. ESPiN does not have the money to fund the Network and Swaffie isn't stupid enough to enter the venture and take more risk. He probably doesn't have the authority to throw caution to the wind.
It's possible the unbundling of ESPiN's networks and an internet channel is the solution. If we enter a new contract the one which we are now bound by is negated which gives us back our entire broadcasting rights. In effect, we are starting all over with selling our brand. That means the GOR broadcasting rights are our bargaining chip not ESPiN's.
That is a big deal. If we are negotiating a new agreement which includes ESPiN's resources on an exclusive network then we will gain more power over our product. The ACC is a profit sharing organization. Clemson get's a 'fair share,' of those profits and Swaffie is operating under the guidance and authority of the Universities. We want a network but if a TV network is going to cost money we don't need it.
If an internet network is profitable and it makes more than what we are now getting them why would you think we are screwed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16218]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12768
Joined: 11/14/09
|
I'm okay with a streaming entity over cable, however,
Jul 9, 2016, 12:38 PM
|
|
I would want to see subscriptions on that tied to individual schools, wherein subscribers could designate a league school that they support and thus enhance that school's payout, which this model easily allows.
The ACC is very different in its makeup than the other Power 5 leagues. Having individual programs that are driving more subscribers earn greater benefits would be an extremely fair way to move forward where you don't penalize schools like Clemson and FSU for the Syracuses, Wakes, and NC State's of the league.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95383
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I'd love to see a bonus plan for football...
Jul 9, 2016, 1:17 PM
|
|
even if Duke and UNC got more from basketball. I don't see that happening. It seems like the possibility for something like that would be impractical if not unattainable. Half the schools in our conference wouldn't agree to unequal revenue sharing and it might rip our conference apart.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing for me but I think it would be bad for Clemson if the TV rights to all our away games were lost over a conference breakup. If each school had sole power over their home games imagine the confusion.
At least now we get a share of the money the ACC makes when we play Cuse. Do I have this all wrong? If so then I've either failed to see your perspective or misunderstood what you meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16218]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12768
Joined: 11/14/09
|
I'm only referencing 3rd tier rights here - that segment
Jul 11, 2016, 11:29 AM
|
|
which remains available for either a network or stand-alone after our primary broadcast arrangement. And I push this primarily as a counter to the league wanting to expand to 9 league games as part of generating more rights fees associated with this, which severely hampers the "SEC 4" in its ability to maintain quality Power 5 OOC home and home schedules outside of the existing SEC rivals.
So, instead of a 9-game schedule being a tax on Clemson, FSU, Ga. Tech, and Louisville to support other programs that don't contribute to the league's fortunes accordingly, which this amounts to, if revenues in this expanded area were instead divided according to pledged individual support, it would be more equitable and easier to swallow. It might also lead to greater subscriber numbers overall, knowing that doing so was directly supporting your school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8857
Joined: 5/30/01
|
Re: I'm only referencing 3rd tier rights here - that segment
Jul 11, 2016, 11:37 AM
|
|
Here's the problem with having only a digital channel: there's no money in it because nobody will watch it and it won't be forced on providers. That's the only way these other channels, like the SEC Chamnel, make any money. It sure as h*ll isn't because of the programming, which is generally terrible. Digital channels might be the future, but right now they're very difficult to monetize unless they come with great programming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
