http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/college/acc-channel-launch-facing-delay...
The launch of an ACC network run in partnership with ESPN, which has been expected for 2017, will likely take longer than expected.
The cable giant has asked for the delay, according to Georgia Tech president G.P. "Bud" Peterson, who made the statement at last week's Georgia Tech Athletic Association quarterly board meeting. Conversations between the league and network are ongoing. The conference and network have discussed partnering on a dedicated ACC channel at least five years.
I don't see how the ACC can keep delaying a network and hope to keep up. I also dont see how VT, GT, FSU, Clemson and BC will keep letting Swofford screw this up.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
That Raycom deal Swoffy signed to get his son a bonus and promotion just keeps paying off
What's the story here? I never heard that (the "his son" part).
I'm not saying 100% that it is true, but there is too much smoke to be no fire. Swoffords son was/is an employee at raycom sports network. A little while after the acc signed the deal with raycom, a lot of information came out saying his son received a very big bonus and a promotion because of the deal. Take all this with a grain of salt tho
Edit: grammar
PS: I hate typing on a smart phone
Chad Swofford at the time was (and still is) Senior Director, New Media and Business Development for Raycom Sports. He was in charge of the negotiations from their standpoint.
Also worth noting he worked in the Boston College Athletic Department when they received their invite into the ACC.
Maybe Chad Swafford is just really really good at his job...like me.
It's a conspiracy theory from #FSUTwitter.
Meh, if there was any malfeasance then the ACC presidents who signed off on the deal are just as guilty.
Besides, hasn't Raycom has been doing better than expected with their syndication? It may wind up being a real asset down the road.
If it were corporate or partnership law, it would depend on the amount of disclosure given by Swofford to the presidents. If the ACC was a corporation or partnership, Swofford would have to fully disclose any and all benefits to himself or family. If the ACC presidents signed off fully informed, then yes, no guilt. However, I don't know if there are any applicable laws between deals of organizations and private companies. (although there should be if there isn't, at least in this instance, where millions of dollars are lost annually on behalf the deal)
I think you countered your own point.
how so?
This is all about ESPN and
ABCDisney -- and bad timing for the ACC - and has little to do with Swofford. ESPN held all the cards on this from day 1 and wasn't willing to do an ACC Network until the SEC Network was a demonstrable success and some costs were recovered. Now unfortunately ESPN has a mandate fromABCDisney to cut costs big time and starting a new network is a huge cost. So no matter how much ESPN might like to do an ACC Network, the suits atABCDisney are not going to be sympathetic or supportive.Technically, it's not ABC, it's Disney. Both ABC and ESPN are corporate entities within Disney.
Its not even Disney, its the Galactic Empire. This is all coming down from the Sith
No, Disney owns them too.
Correct. Mouse ear to you.
Spot on.
ESPN is getting killed because "cord cutters" are ruining their profits. Imagine that, you have to actually provide something people want to watch and not garbage idiot commentators spewing nonsense for 75% of your programming (unless you are Fox News). The Mothership charges cable companies more per subscriber than any other channel that you can't opt out of, and most people just do not care about sports to pony up, and frankly I don't blame them.
There will be no ACC network. ESPN is bleeding, and the conference missed any chance they may have had to partner.
ESPN is getting killed because they agreed and cooperated with the death spiral of doom for the SEC and B1G games. The games are not worth the billions agreed to. In effect they agreed to pay more money than the product was worth.
Don't worry, ESPN is making up for that lost renevue courtesy of the ACC. Sigh.
I actually like hearing about this. I think it's widely believed that cable subscriptions exist almost solely to provide live sports, as most of the other channels on a tv package are just shimmed in for the cable provider to make more money.
I cut the cord before last football season, occasionally struggling to find some of the games I really wanted to watch. It's been fine, overall, as I've only really lost out on VT games, which I now stream the radio broadcast from Hokiesports.com. So no real loss on my end, and I save about $80 a month.
After the Big Ten network was created, it was also put on a premium television package in my area (PA). They relied on people packaging BTN into their subscriptions, and now the SEC Network is also part of a higher-tier sports package above-and-beyond your regular cable subscription. I'm not surprised that the SEC went this route, as having ESPN as a partner is a very, very good option. Texas, of course, did it, as well.
Now, cord-cutters are undermining the packaged-channels subscription model and the old relationships with cable providers appear to be bearing less and less fruit for the conferences that signed onto these models. A coworker of mine noted that ESPN was considering offering their own streaming service apart from cable subscriptions (a claim that neither he nor I have a #source for), which is clearly the direction in which the industry is moving.
This is a positive development for consumers, but I'd expect to see a reaction from the cable/internet giants since this will put their cable subscriber model - one of their primary revenue generators - under major threat. I think this will be a difficult transition for the industry and for internet-only subscribers like myself.
Having said all of that, I think not having an ACC Network as a sub-network on ESPN (like SEC or Longhorn) is actually what is best for us right now. I think starting a network that is tied to cable is probably the best operational approach at the moment, but I think the tactical and strategic considerations here are to move towards a digital distribution model which may or may not be affiliated with ESPN.
More and more the internet providers are trying to implement download limits and surcharges to try and tackle the streaming market influences on their systems. More and more are cutting their satellite and cable services and moving to streaming sources like hulu, and netflix.
Yeah this is going to be an increasing problem, and I think the solution will come from the tech sector as opposed to the telecom sector.
I, for one, welcome our new Amazonian, Googlian, and Microsoftian overlords.
Yes I love the fact that Google Fiber is being installed in my neighborhood as we speak
I was about to tell you I'm jealous but Homer has taught me that what I feel is envy
We should have bolted to the SEC when we had the opportunity. Can't keep up in an arms race without a war chest.
THIS. I'm sorry, but I have always hated the ACC. The conference is and always has been soft in football. Had FSU not joined in the early 90s, there would have been nothing noteworthy to talk about with football from the ACC. Everyone constantly says we are with our "geographic rivals" here, but what do we really share in common with uva, duke, unc, etc? Hell, the land grants we actually have most in common with (Clemson, NC State) we never get to play. And then there's the academic argument. Last I heard, the ACC was an athletic conference. Pretty sure Vandy has no issue with being in the SEC.
We should've waited for an SEC offer instead of joining the ACC in 2003. And I guarantee that offer would've come. We are a football school at VT. And being in a basketball conference where the leadership has us dead last in revenue isn't going to help us at all.
And being in a basketball conference where the leadership has us dead last in revenue isn't going to help us at all.
What does this mean? #sauce? Will this be getting better if VT begins to improve?
Out of all 5 power conferences, ACC is dead last in TV contract revenue. Our success on the field has nothing to do with it. The ACC inked this deal a few years back and are stuck with it for quite a long time.
Oh, OK. I thought you were talking about basketball revenues.
Yea, the ACC TV contract sucks, but at least they did renegotiate that to get it closer to the other P5 contracts.
True. But now we're just last by a yard and not a mile. Still miles behind the PAC 12, SEC, and B1G.
Credit to HorseOnATreadmill for this graphic from another thread:
Yea those numbers are old. Here is what was reported in Forbes 2014:
Forbes 2014
.
.
Here is forbes report from 2013:
Forbes 2013
I'LL cut to the chase:
ACC TV REVENUE 2014 - $240 Million
ACC TV REVENUE 2013 - $240 Million
The per school revenue should be divided by 14 since ND is not part of ACC Football.
When was that invite sent?/s
Edit: Maybe I wasn't clear when I typed this so here goes. I don't think VT ever received or was going to receive an invite to the SEC. So Whit needs to push for what's best for VT in the ACC because that is where VT is and will be.
Nothing official has ever been said, but I think he is referring to the very substantial rumor that an SEC offer was on the table for us in 2011 after they took aTm. Wanted us as the 14th instead of Missouri, and would've better balanced the divisions geographically.
Edit: Sorry, my sarcasm detector wasn't working. I'm of the opinion that the SEC wanted us pretty badly when they expanded. They would love to get into the MD/DC/VA TV market. Expands them into new, and very valuable TV territory, and brings a very good football program with a strong fanbase as well. I think we were who they wanted, but Missouri was the contigency plan. I think out of Clemson, FSU, and VT, we are the most valuable in the eyes of the SEC given that TV market and the fact that political pressure would very likely keep Clemson and FSU out.
Obviously, the ACC is where the administration always wanted VT. Huge political battle in VA to make sure we were part of that invite, and we seem to have always wanted to be with our "geographic rivals" in UNC, UVA, Duke, Wake, etc. So I think we're ultimately in the ACC for the long haul, for better or for worse. I would be a ton more favorable of ACC football if they could fix the scheduling problem and get Clemson/VT/FSU/Miami playing each other more often, but they seem to be unwilling or unable to come up with a better solution than the status quo.
There was a rumor, but the bird in the hand is best. The ACC isn't so horrible a place to be.
There's no reason the ACC can't be competitive with the other P5 conferences in all sports. FSU won the national championship in football in 2014, and Clemson is a powerhouse this year. The ACC is the best in basketball, and has a network that will show a lot of games this year.
Three million dollars less per year per team is significant, but the ACC has some pretty good network coverage of it's games. I've seen every VT football game on cable this year. Even Furman.
I really don't think Swofford is a dummy at all. He's made some pretty good moves in recent years.
I tend to be along this line of thinking as well. In addition to the big money-makers in football & basketball, the ACC is very strong in non-revenue generating sports like men & women's soccer, men & women's lacrosse, baseball, field hockey, etc.
So while they won't draw tons of viewers on a network, the fact that the conference is nationally relevant in those sports every year is a big plus when it comes to content for a potential network.
Never know what could happen. Next round of contract negotiations might prompt another round of expansion. Could see the Big Ten and SEC further expanding footprints with ACC teams if Grant of Rights can get beat in court.
While I'm not a fan of the VT-to-SEC talk, but I do wonder how differently Sands/Whit would've handled it vs. Stegar/Weaver.
Selfishly, I want no part of the SEC. The games are way further away for me to travel to and I don't see our booster base growing to support the increased level of spending we would need to have success in that league. I like that there is incentive for our basketball program to be great and that wouldn't happen in the SEC. Buzz Williams would never coach an SEC team, apart from Kentucky, maybe.
I agree. I'd rather see the ACC get better.
An extra $8 or $10 million would make very little difference in VTs position in the national landscape and would actually put it even further down the pecking order in the conference landscape. Folks want to think that VT would suddenly be like a UGa or aTm in the SEC when the reality is it would be more like Ark or South Carolina.
The real revenue problem is athletic giving/spending by the VT fan base and alumni is WAY below average for a power 5 school.
The ACC both its members and Swofford and company really should have some kind of leverage here, failure to launch this channel or hell even an online only ACC channel has to have consequences. I'm also not a fan of Swofford basically ignoring the issue whenever asked about this by reporters.
What are Fox and NBC up to these days?
ESPN owns the rights to the ACC for a long while
They can have our big games, no problem.
Our lesser games and other sports that are shared between FSN, Comcast, and (for football) Raycom are my concern. Every other league that has a network gets to carry their own "lesser" tier games, it seems.
No, those games are still owned by ESPN. They sublicense the games out to those other entities. Raycom was grandfathered into the deal. Comcast has nothing to do with it, other than being the channel that airs the Fox produced RSN game in areas where there is no FSN.
Overall, the ACC has the simplest rights deal of all conferences -- ESPN owns everything from top to bottom.
But why would ESPN want to start an ACC network right now? The SEC Network opened up several time slots for them. And there's a good chance that the Big Ten and Pac-12, and maybe even the Big 12 will start migrating their rights elsewhere (seeing as how all of them have them split between ESPN and Fox). Plus, NBC is going to start making bids for college sports. ESPN has the ACC all locked up through the middle of next decade, and they're gonna need those teams for content on the main ESPN channels.
This is the perfect time for the ACC to drop ESPN. Tell them to either start the network now or cancel the contract. With online streaming becoming more and more popular, I would like to see the ACC try something in that area. I bet Yahoo, Google, or Netflix would pay a boat load for the ACC rights. Have them partner with NBC for the game of the week. That may also help get Notre Dame to finally join the conference.
Actually, that's not a bad idea.
I could see NBC wanting to use Notre Dame as leverage to get access to the whole ACC.
Meanwhile, though, ND is having a pretty good season...
FWIW the ACC said the report was premature, but didn't provide much substance to counter the initial claim: http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-channel-dela....
To me that reeks of standard ACC/Swofford CYA. He rarely talks about any progress in getting the network going even when asked point blank by reporters.
If you want to see Swofford scramble ask him about sanctions for UNCheat
As Joe said, we've already missed out on our biggest chance on a payday by not joining the SEC (whether it was a real offer or not).
The business model is changing, and it's happening FAST. It's kinda crazy how quickly it happened too, and ESPN paid ridiculous sums of money for rights fees that they're now struggling to recoup costs. Just look at what they're paying out PER YEAR:
Monday Night Football - $1.9 billion
College Football Playoff - $608 million
NBA - $1.4 billion
And those are just the crazy money ones, which doesn't include things like MLB or MLS.
Until the big networks figure out how to make money on streaming services, the money being paid out for live sports is going to drastically decrease. While most leagues have secured their rights deals for the next 5 or 6 years, leagues who haven't been locked in to a long-term deal are going to be in for a rude awakening (UFC comes to mind). All this is to say that the ACC has missed its best chance to get a huge payday, and until the model adjusts they won't get a big money deal.
EDIT: Here's a great link that shows what ESPN is paying out right now, for those interested. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/10/26/Media/ESPN.aspx
And here I thought it was going to be going up as networks are trying to stockpile of programming that is DVR-proof, and every major network has a cable sports counterpart now that they are trying to build up.
That's the argument that has been made, but something's gotta give at some point right? Especially if they aren't covering enough of the costs by declining subscriber numbers.
It's kind of a moot point for now though, as I believe every major professional US sports league has a deal that locks them in until at least 2020. By then, I imagine we'll see a much different model to mitigate the losses that are happening now.
At least now I know why espn was cramming the nba down my throat. I stopped going to their website because it was all NBA all the time
I stopped going to ESPN 3 years ago when I joined TKP because ESPN's coverage is awful
Sidenote since we have been talking about ESPN on this thread, they are "suspending" Grantland indefinetely effective immediately. Shame because Grantland actually had some interesting articles on there usually.
I've never been on the Grantland site but since ESPN is keeping the writers under contract can't they just have the same articles under the ESPN site?
The implication (I think) is that a lot of those writers won't see their deals renewed once they expire since ESPN doesn't really need all of them. Some of them (like Jonah Keri or Zach Lowe) will likely be kept on staff. The pop culture writers are getting turfed.