Pretty good read. Mostly stuff we kind of already know/talk about. But my question is this: Who will be the great innovator here?
Culture is shifting away from the traditional way of being entertained (through TV... Cable & Satellite). People stream what they want and go to a friends house or to a bar to watch THE game they want to watch. It's about the bottom line for a lot of people.
Who will be innovative enough to find that new way of generating revenue through the entertainment venue? What will that innovative idea be? Can the ACC (and Big XII) survive?
Edit: A link would be nice... http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/florida-gators/os-big-12-meetings-...
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
The ACC is going to get a network. Rumors have ESPNU turning into an ACC network. Also have to think an ACC network would be just as valuable as the BIG or SEC networks if presented right. Those networks are made up entirely of tier 3 rights which the ACC kills it in (probably superior inventory to either). It's just a matter of when and how, not if IMO. Only reason these pieces get written is because they kill it on clicks, not because the writers truly believe it.
ESPNU is pretty much already the ACC network due to the fact that our mid tier games get bumped down the ladder in favor of useless SEC and Big Ten games.
Excuse my French, but fuck that!
ACC is in a better situation then the BIG10 or SEC. Right now they have to make a deal with ESPN to get their network which means they split profit with them too.
The ACC can pull a WWE and have a subscription based online network that many people would buy to watch their own team play football or basketball or maybe even the lower level sports. Cutting ESPN the middle man out. They then collect all the profits making it more profitable then either of these other networks.
Maybe. I know I'm not paying full boat just so I can watch BC and NCState play at noon in September. Or October. Or November. Or basketball in February. If I could subscribe to just VT, then it's 99% I would be in for that. (Dependent upon price of course. I'm not paying $50 a month for the privilege of getting some softball games and our November basketball schedule...no offense.)
Right now the "lower" conference games, the BC-NcState tilts are picked up on Raycom. If I'm sitting to watch football, I'm stopping on an $EC or B1G game, not an ACC low-def snoozer. That drives the numbers and thus the $$$.
I've lived all over the country, and trying to get the games where VT is going to crush the opponite is not easy.
Also think about this. You broadcast FSU/Clemson exclusively on the network. Is there a bar in the country that is not going to pony up to be able to provide that game. That's the kind of leverage you would have if you went online exclusive.
A streaming plan is definitely imperative for the success of an ACC Network deal.
Also I find the idea that the SEC can poach the best teams from the ACC and the Big XII absolutely ridiculous.
I don't want my sports streaming on some delayed can only get one stream at a time internet channel. I want my sports on TV, where I can TiVo it, where I can have all four of my tuners set to different games so I can flip between.
Except everything is moving to internet based platforms. I know TiVo is still around, but God that is just about ancient at this moment in time.
The future is steaming and the media revenues know it.
1.) A professional, non-bootlegged stream to the internet would likely be less delayed than your TV (not delayed at all)
2.) It's 2016, stream it to your TV
I understand your concerns but this is how it is now, you have to adapt and learn instead of remaining in the dark.
ESPN3 is delayed, as for streaming something to my TV like Amazon, Netflix, HBO I do that. However for live sporting event days like Saturday in the fall for TV I want to ability to channel surf not pull up one single streaming site that I'm stuck on unless I want to go to a complete different streaming app/service or go to live TV.
I have to agree with Fireman here. Streaming is more convenient from a location/time/price perspective, but from an end-user perspective, television is definitely a more refined product.
That being said, I'd rather pay $40 for internet and $10 for my assorted streaming services and just go to a bar every Saturday than spend the $200/month that my parents do. I also think that the ACC has the opportunity to get ahead of the game and develop something really innovative (though I'm not hopeful).
Edit: I live by myself, and travel 25%-75% for work, so it really doesn't make sense to have cable.
But then how much are you spending at the bar 4 days a week. Your going to save on tv subscription only to pour it back out at the bar (not sure of pun intended) and probably spend more. I'd rather sit at home where I can pause it to take a piss drink what beer or drink I want for way less and sit in a comfortable spot. Plus I don't have to deal with people cheering for other teams or trying to listen to the VT game when Ole Miss is playing LSU or something.
Bar down the street from me has $3 Sweetwater IPAs all day everyday, so I'm set.
I kinda enjoy this atmosphere. If I'm too hungover to deal with it I'll either stream the game from home, or I'll go over to friend's house. There's probably 1-2 weekends/year that I wish I had cable.
I go to the local alum watching parties for basically every VT game anyway. We get some decent specials and it's $10-20 a week depending on how long and if I get food a little over $20. Way cheaper than cable and we're usually out after that so I'd be buying bar drinks anyway watching the other games.
Where are you finding someone to give you high speed internet for $40/month?!?!
I get 18 mbps from AT&T for $47/month in Atlanta. I live by myself, so I'm typically only streaming one program at a time. I don't play video games or anything like that.
decent streaming at 18mbps for 47/month? I'd say you are in the minority for that being sufficient for speed (i dont play video games either) AND price.
I understand your preference (and props to you for making that work), I just don't see this as something the model that ACC is using to make these decisions.
No issues streaming. 1080p, 30fps. The worst part is that my twitter feed/text messages are ~30 seconds behind the stream - but that would be an issue regardless of internet speed.
However, may place has been wired for Google Fiber, although the service is not available yet. Looking forward to that.
yes, please report back on Google Fiber
So are all of the channels coming through a cable company. Plus HD adds a delay. And if you're watching on a device that allows you to rewind "live" TV, you've got even more of a delay.
Yes the built in delay versus the 30 second to a minute delay.
I'd say ESPN qualifies as a professional non-bootlegged stream and there's definitely a delay. Try using it while you watch the same game on live tv. Not to mention the quality of the picture is much better with your normal tv provider
What's a tuner?
With my newest TIVO box I can record four shows at once or have four different channels set up live and flip between them. Rewinding if need be so I can see if I missed anything.
It seemed like the article states differing facts:
Which one is correct? I could see the BIG10 & SEC losing market share in the long run if they are not successful in having ALL marquee programs join their conference.
Conferences love the networks because the contracts are ridiculously ludicrous and allows them to print money
The network providers (ESPN, Fox sports) hate them because they are now realizing they will never make money off the deals.
ACC is in a bad spot because we need the network to compete but are finding it difficult to find a suitor because the facade of the conference dedicated network being a cash cow has crumbled.
If the networks hate them and are losing money, then why would the terms remain the same (i.e. printing money for the conference at the expense of the parent network) when the current contracts expire. I understand that the conferences are making a lot of money now but do not see how it will continue for decades if they are money losing ventures.
They are either "paying" it and keeping up with the other conferences, or just not doing anything at all. They are just in it hoping that it will change within the time they have the contract so they will be in a prime spot to manage the loss. If they aren't at the table, then they aren't even in the picture.
It seems like Fox is taking more and more ground in the world of sports (including analysis). I personally wouldn't mind seeing the ACC work out some sort of deal with Fox Sports instead of the ESECPN (weather it be on TV or some sort of streaming deal).
What you all missing is that if they go the streaming route, they get 100% of the funds. They produce it and they sell their coverage when needed.
Major sports are doing this everywhere. They build the new stadiums and then all in house food and stores are run by the team, when they used to pay 3rd party vendors to do so.
Streaming is no different. They will produce, distribute, and sell it. That is how you beat the SEC and BIG. They have to pay ESPN. If we do it in house the ACC does not.
Yeah Fox has invested heavily in sports, both in college football (conference deals, hiring Erin A for the studio and Stewart Mandel for the web) as well as the World Cup (I think this will be a disaster). As far as in-the-booth talent, though, they are still pretty far behind everyone else. I expect this to change. I also dislike the fact that it is the only one of the big four networks that I can't get free via antenna or streaming.
Thanks for sharing but that article is the definition of click bait, written by a Gator/SEC homer.
Sure... But we are in the "dead zone", so I thought anything CFB related might help get us through...
Yeah that's fair. Didn't mean to be super critical. I'd read the article on another site where it was linked to push a tired narrative. So I was irked a little when I saw it here.
Don't we want there to not be an ACC Network before the end of the month, so ESPN has to pay out a large sum of money to the ACC?
Either way, doesn't ESPN have to be involved with an ACC Network anyway, since they control most, if not all, of the ACC broadcast rights for the next decade or so?
Well you're talking about ~$3 million one time or possibly the same or a little less yearly for 10-20 years. I'll take the long term security. Best case, ESPN screws up and has to pay out and then the ACC immediately signs a TV network contract. Pipe dreams are rolling at 2 in the morning.
Everything I've read and seen from actual sports writers, as opposed to the twitter people who throws every theory onto the internet wall, has stated that if an ACC sports network channel is not created within a certain time frame, ESPN must pay the ACC $45 million per year until said network is created.
we might not be so bad off if a network is never created, then. 45mm a year wouldn't hurt...and I think there is a certain amount of risk involved with starting a network. As has been mentioned several times over, if it's not done right it could flop badly.
Did not know that it would be a recurring cost to ESPN. If that's the case, I cannot see ESPN eating that over 1-2 years before they will make a network. The main thing I am worried about is if they cut costs on the network to try and make the cost of running it lower so they do not lose money like they are with the others.
I believe it depends upon the type of network that is launched by the ACC in partnership with ESPN. The limited literature, i.e. newspaper articles from main stream media and the occasional free article from Sports Business Daily indicate that a traditional, dedicated sports cable channel will not be supported by market place as it currently stands. So far, ESPN has lost close to 10 million subscribers over the last four years, which amounts to almost $60 - $90 million in revenue that they are losing each month from cord cutters. Then with the growing popularity of watching sports on the smartphone, tablet, desktop, what have you, and well, IMHO, the launch window for the ACC to get the ACCN on cable is pretty much over. Now Swofford, ESPN and even Dave Boren (President of Oklahoma University) have hinted that the sports channel of the future, another nebulous term, is a multi-media platform channel. I keep hearing people make references to WWE on the blogs, but those are conjectures by bloggers. By the way, I don't even know what WWE is except that it is a pro wrestling??? I'm getting old. Anyhow, IMHO, there probably is a good possibility that a future ACC Network will get announced in 1 or 2 years. It will probably be a combination of streaming and OTA via ESPN. Someone wrote on a blog post that the SEC and BIG each took 4 - 5 years to setup their networks and secure their rights. We are, I believe, at either year 3 or year 4 since the GOR was announced. These things do take time. I also believe that it is critical that the ACC keep their conference revenues within the ballpark of those two conferences. Matching either of them is out of the question as things stand now.
Like any war, money, lots and lots of money, matter in finishing as the winner/survivor. I believe the author of this thread chose the title very well, the ACC is in an arms race, but with the Big 12. Whichever of these two conferences gets a semi-profitable/profitable dedicated sports network up and running will survive to become part of the P4. Pac-12, due to geography, will not be raided nor due any of those schools really want to leave that conference. The BIG and SEC are printing money so they aren't going to lose member schools. That just leaves the ACC and Big 12.
WWE is professional wrestling. The reason it gets brought up, is because they have their own channel that is 100% stream based, and they are slowly cutting out the cable companies since they provide their Pay Per Views online. They are the model for launching your own network. It took them 1 year to be profitable, but they did it and now are making a ton of money because they control distribution.
That's good to hear and thank you for sharing. As to the question of which model would be better for the ACC schools is above my pay grade. If it is a dedicated sports channel on cable, then I will fork over the money to pay for it. If it is a combination of ESPN and streaming, great! I'll pay for that option since then I can select, I hope, which teams/games I want to follow.
I think the author ignores the fact that the SEC has demonstrated in the past that they do not want to add another school in SC, GA, or FL. He argues that Clemson and FSU, as well as Texas and Oklahoma, will be poached by the SEC at some point or another.
I don't entirely disagree with his points about networks - the independent television network model is fading and the ACC wouldn't serve its members well to invest in creating another media entity at the moment - and I agree with posters above that we should investigate streaming subscription services instead of a dedicated TV network. I said on another thread recently that this is all I would need - a reliable streaming service so that I can see the games I want to see when they are on, not ESPN on a cable package where I need to buy an additional package to see ESPNU, SECN, LHN, BTN, PAC12N, etc. I've left that model and I'm not looking back.
Having said all of that, I think the eventuality of it all will come down to the SEC poaching OK and OKSt as well as TCU and NCSt, Texas going independent, a shuffling of Big Ten and ACC teams (maybe including Vandy as well), and the eventual expansion of the PAC to make 16 team conferences across the board.
While I'd agree Texas has the following to go independent successfully (a la Notre "we've got the rest of college football by the balls" Dame), do you think the playoff structure can absorb that, given that they claim that conference championships matter?
I think it can. The caveat being that Texas would need to schedule very well in order to be considered, just as Notre Dame always had done with major conference opponents (and Navy) in the BCS era. In fact, I think the structure of CFB could be engineered effectively to allow, maybe even require, some teams to be independent, but it would take a significant amount of shuffling around the country. I'd argue that, instead of trying to shoehorn teams from conferences into a playoff, the season and conference affiliations should be built to cater to simplifying decisions on who makes the playoff.
This is true, but that same regime expressed interest in VT and NC State for their markets. I think if the super conferences ever come to fruition, the SEC will be one of the survivors and I do think in that instance they probably take those 4 schools and hopefully us.
Yes, when the SEC was looking at expansion, VT and NCSt were both candidates. I believe that this was to expand their geographic footprint, which, if I recall correctly, was geared towards subscriber fees in major metro areas through cable, a model that is now being questioned as to its long-term viability. I agree with you that if superconferences come to fruition, the SEC is going to be one of the survivors, along with the Big Ten (the other most powerful conference) and PAC (geographically, they're protected from much of the poaching that could be done). The only question is - who is it gonna be? Big12 or ACC?
I do think it will be exceedingly difficult to separate OK and OKSt, and I think VT is better in the ACC, but the SEC may want to double down in Texas, hence my suggestion about TCU (aka not Baylor, not TT, and Texas I don't think would share all of their revenue), as well as expand their footprint into NC. I think they'll eventually sacrifice Missouri to the Big Ten, which is honestly where I think they should be anyway.
Amazing what the numbers have become for college football.
Seems like it weakens the argument for players not being paid the
more it climbs.
I think it's been stated before in another thread but it needs restating, that the ACC network, be it online or otherwise, could be more successful than either of those two other conference networks due to the number of schools playing high quality numerous sports. The SEC has football, baseball, but basketball is lacking. The Big10 has football and basketball but no baseball to speak of. The ACC can have all 3 especially if VT and Miami or UNC can rise up to match FSU and Clemson. Not to mention all the Olympic sports, and soccer, lacrosse, etc all high quality content to be shown year round. It doesn't generate the same buzz as football and basketball but it gives genuine new fresh year round content not reruns of Alabama-Ga in April or whatever is on the SEC network.
Right now it seems like the SEC network plays nothing but baseball or replays of the various schools' spring games.
I agree with Hokierick. Its not all about football. The ACC is the best basketball conference and tend to be upper tier in every Olympic sport.
I personally would much prefer a cable network with a stream option. I usually watch whatever ACC game is on instead of some SEC game I don't care about, and cracking out the laptop to do so isn't appealing.
Also, I think a subscription based online platform hurts from a recruiting prospective. Are recruits really going to subscribe and crack out the iPad to watch the VT game every weekend? Doubt it.
ESPN is still the dominant sports network, so if that's the case, I want them to be talking about the ACC. If we sign a deal with them, we'll have them hyping us like they hype the SEC now.
I get your thought process with reguards to recruiting. Until cable is officially dead there will always be games on cable somewhere, including ACC sports. I would also argue that most recruits probably do not have the deluxe sports cable package, and more prown to having internet and or a data plan on their phones.
The bigger issue is that more and more people are cutting the cord and using Rokus and other streaming devices to watch games on their TVs and their PHONEs. most children these days have great phones and access to wifi everywhere giving them the opportunity to watch anything anywhere. Since cable viewership is going down you have to offer a streaming option.
There is a reason the NFL is letting Twitter broadcast 10 Thursday night games this year and why yahoo broadcast the London game last year. The trend in the market is that eventually the Internet will kill the cable model. In a few years the highest bidder for NFL broadcasting rights might not be CBS, Fox, or NBC. It more then likely will be Amazon or Google. So the sooner you start your own streaming abilities the better you will get at it and beat your competition.
Here is an article about it.